1. Disposition for departure order and extension of sojourn period, etc. against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2014 (change of qualification for the owner).

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), entered the Republic of Korea on November 4, 199 and stayed in Korea on June 30, 2008, and returned to the Republic of Korea on May 7, 2011.

The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on November 4, 199 and entered the Republic of Korea on June 30, 2008, stated that the date of birth of the Plaintiff was B, but the date of birth of the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on May 7, 2011.

On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff had been staying in the Republic of Korea with the status of stay F-6 of Maternians (C-5) and applied for a change of status of stay to the status of permanent residence (H-5) against the Defendant.

After examining the application for change of the above status of stay, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff entered or departed from the Republic of Korea using a different passport.

Accordingly, on May 1, 2014, the Defendant issued an order for departure (hereinafter “instant order for departure”) to the Plaintiff on the ground of Articles 68(1)1, 46(1)1, and 7 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 12421, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have a valid passport.

Furthermore, on the same day, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for change of permanent residence (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) on the grounds of the above order for departure from the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”), and combined the instant order for departure and the instant refusal disposition (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

On the other hand, it is reasonable to prohibit the Plaintiff from entering the Republic of Korea for 10 years, in the “written notice of decision on examining an immigration offender” prepared by the Defendant on the date of departure order.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff's assertion that the date of birth entered the Republic of Korea with another passport is legitimate, but the plaintiff's allegation was erroneous.