1. The part concerning the claim for revocation of entry prohibition in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on April 27, 1997 with a passport issued under the name of "A (A-B)" as a Vietnam national female, and entered the Republic of Korea on April 29, 1997. On November 29, 1997, upon receipt of a deportation order on April 12, 2005. (B) The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit (C-3) status on July 7, 2008, using a passport issued under the name of "C" (C-B), and went into the Republic of Korea for illegal stay on October 6, 2008, and forced departure from the Republic of Korea on September 29, 201, pursuant to Article 14 of the Immigration Control Act (A-B), and was subject to a deportation order on April 7, 2017 and Article 14 of the Immigration Control Act (A-B), and was subject to a deportation order on May 26, 2017.

hereinafter referred to as "the prohibition of entry" in this case.

3) The Plaintiff left Vietnam on the same day. (The Plaintiff left Korea on the same day (the fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Whether the part concerning the revocation of entry prohibition in the instant lawsuit is legitimate

A. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits of this case is merely an internal work process to take appropriate measures to prohibit entry when the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea and requested re-entry, and thus does not constitute a disposition subject to administrative litigation.

B. Determination 1.