1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following 2.3 to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details of the judgment added;

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion ① Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act is that only the foreigner is the principal offender, and Article 18 (1) of the same Act is a provision to secure effectiveness. ② The principal offender under Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act is both the citizen of the Republic of Korea and the foreigner; ③ Article 16 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of the Overseas Koreans") provides that where a foreign nationality Korean may refuse to grant permission for extension of the period of stay and a foreign nationality Korean is sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment," and ④ Article 16 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Overseas Koreans Act provides that Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act shall apply to a foreign nationality Korean who violates the purport of the "Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans" (hereinafter "the Enforcement Decree of the Overseas Koreans Act").

As such, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Article 18(1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that a foreigner shall obtain the status of stay that allows him/her to work in the Republic of Korea; and Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act provides that a person who does not have the status of stay under paragraph (1).