1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. The Plaintiff was a foreigner of the nationality of the People’s Republic of China and was residing in the Republic of Korea around April 2012.

B. On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 8 million on the grounds that the Seoul Southern District Court provided two-time medication of psychotropic drugs, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

C. On May 25, 2017, the Defendant issued a deportation order to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of entry prohibition on the premise that the Plaintiff was also subject to the disposition of entry prohibition on the premise that the disposition of entry prohibition was made against the Plaintiff in addition to the deportation order. Therefore, we examine whether the instant lawsuit

B. Article 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that the Minister of Justice may prohibit entry of a foreigner who falls under “persons deemed highly likely to engage in any conduct detrimental to the interest or public safety of the Republic of Korea (Article 3)” or “persons deemed highly likely to engage in any conduct detrimental to the economic or social order or good morals (Article 12(1)4).” According to Article 12(3)4 of the Act, where a foreigner intends to enter the Republic of Korea, he/she shall undergo an entry inspection conducted by an immigration control official at the entry and departure port where the foreigner enters the Republic of Korea, and the immigration control official shall not be subject to the prohibition or refusal of entry under Article 11 of the Act.

Meanwhile, according to Article 92(1) of the Act, Article 96(1) of the Enforcement Decree, and the main sentence of Article 78(3) of the Enforcement Rule, the Minister of Justice is in accordance with Article 58 of the Act among the authority to prohibit entry under Article 11 of the Act.