1. The Defendant’s order of departure issued to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

On October 16, 1994, the Plaintiff entered the country with Chinese nationality as a passport with the date of birth “B” (hereinafter “first passport”).

On September 24, 2004, the departure order was voluntarily withdrawn.

On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a passport with the date of birth "C" (hereinafter referred to as "second passport") and stayed as a short-term sojourn status (C-2) (hereinafter referred to as "second passport"), and married with D citizens of the Republic of Korea on March 24, 2008 and then 2016

1. 15. Application for the change of status of stay to permanent residence (F-5)

In the process of examining the application for change of the above status of stay, the Defendant discovered the fact that the Plaintiff possessed the first passport and received a departure order and voluntarily departed from the Republic of Korea. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a departure order issued to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2016 pursuant to Articles 7(1), 11(1)1, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 20, 2016, but was dismissed on July 22, 2016.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including additional number), and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including additional number), and the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff's prior purport of pleading is a valid passport and visa, and he has entered the Republic of Korea and is still staying there until now. Therefore, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful. 2) The plaintiff who is abused from or abused discretion and takes care of his family in a restaurant for the purpose of maintaining his livelihood after the plaintiff married with D and takes care of his employee in good faith; the plaintiff did not commit any crime; and the disposition of this case may be deprived of his livelihood and life base that the plaintiff has maintained for five years or more.

Judgment

1. This.