1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 17, 2009, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of Vietnam’s nationality, entered the Republic of Korea with a visa for non-professional employment (E-9) and continued to stay in Korea on several occasions after obtaining permission for extension of the period of stay. On November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on September 16, 2014.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff did not depart from the Republic of Korea until the expiration of the above period of stay, even though he did not obtain the extension of the period of stay again, and thereafter began to illegally stay

C. On July 5, 2020, in relation to the special assault case, the Plaintiff was investigated by the Sungdong Police Station and confirmed that the illegal stay was handed over to the Defendant’s public official. On July 6, 2020, the following day, the Defendant issued a deportation order (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff for reasons such as the Plaintiff’s illegal stay after the period of stay permitted.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that while the Plaintiff was unable to repay KRW 100 million to B and C, the Plaintiff, who is the obligor, and the Plaintiff, suffered injury to D who is the husband of the Plaintiff, while demanding the repayment of said KRW 100 million to be paid, the Plaintiff was aware of the Plaintiff’s illegal stay in the police investigation process of the instant case and caused the instant disposition.

The plaintiff needs to continue to stay in Korea for the care of husband D's sick family for the above reasons, and it is also necessary to continue to stay in Korea in order to receive loans from the above husband B and C by proceeding a lawsuit against the above husband.

Therefore, the defendant should allow the plaintiff to stay in the Republic of Korea at a humanitarian level taking into account the above circumstances, but otherwise, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea.