1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated the business entity called “C” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and employed D (hereinafter “the instant foreigner”) as an employee.

B. The Defendant: (a) applied Article 18(3), Article 94 Subparag. 9, and Article 102(1) of the Immigration Control Act; and (b) Article 86(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff was employed from June 1, 2012 to November 30, 201 by the Plaintiff as an overseas Korean (F-4) who is not capable of being employed in the simple labor industry; (b) imposed a disposition of notice of KRW 2 million (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Article 105(2) of the Immigration Control Act provides that the head of the Regional Immigration Service shall file an accusation if the person subject to the notification raises an objection against the pertinent disposition.

In light of the content of the above provision and the disposition of notification have a nature as a criminal procedure in advance, and the other party's voluntary uniform takes effect, so the notification disposition itself does not compel the implementation of the notification or form any rights and obligations against the other party, the notification disposition is not subject to administrative litigation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Nu40, Jan. 27, 1976; 75Nu40, May 28, 1998; 96HunBa4, May 28, 1998). Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful.

The defendant's defense pointing this out has merit.

4. The conclusion is that the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.