The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added at the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on February 2, 201 is justifiable if the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the evidence submitted in the first instance and the first instance court, and the evidence submitted in the first instance and the first instance court is comprehensively examined.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is likely to lead to a positive reaction in the urine examination after entry, if a medicine containing cosinent ingredients is taken before entering the Republic of Korea.

In order to overcome these problems, the defendant revised the "Guidelines for Handling Narcotics Inspection by Persons who have entered the Simple Labor Manpower Organization" to provide a person who has stated that he/she has taken advantage of reduction drugs, etc. with an opportunity to re-examine.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not consider other methods such as granting the Plaintiff an opportunity to re-examine and issued a deportation order.

Therefore, the instant disposition was made without guaranteeing the Plaintiff a sufficient procedural opportunity and is unlawful.

B. The date of the instant disposition is July 13, 2018.

According to Eul evidence 13-2, the "Guidelines for the Inspection of Narcotics, etc. of Simple Labor Manpower Organizations" asserted by the plaintiff as the ground for reinspection is recognized that the "Guidelines for the Inspection of Narcotics, etc." was enforced on July 1, 2019.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not comply with the above guidelines at the time of the instant disposition, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant did not guarantee the Plaintiff the procedure prescribed by law.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.