1. The order of departure issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 3, 2018 shall be revoked.

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

Details of the disposition

On August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained non-professional employment (E-9-2) visa from the Republic of Korea on August 31, 2017, and entered the Republic of Korea on October 31, 2017.

On October 31, 2017, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff was subject to narcotics inspection at the Incheon Hospital of Korea Labor Welfare & Welfare Service on October 31, 2017, and the urine test conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on November 21, 2017 also led to the finine training reaction.

Accordingly, on January 3, 2018, the Defendant issued an order for departure issued to the Plaintiff on January 31, 2018 pursuant to Article 11(1)1, 3, and 4 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 46(1)3, and Article 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act for the departure of January 31, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the facts that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the overall purport of the pleadings, was legitimate. However, even though the urine training reaction was conducted at the urine prosecutor conducted immediately after entry into the Republic of Korea, it was due to the Plaintiff’s inclusion in the “Neo codion”, which is a drug for the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from Cambodia, prior to the departure from Cambodia.

Inasmuch as the Defendant’s response to training of the Plaintiff’s urine test alone deemed the Plaintiff to fall under Article 11(1)1, 3, and 4 of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant’s error of mistake of fact is unlawful.

As seen earlier, the written order for departure states that "Article 11 (1) 1, 3, and 4, Article 46 (1) 3, and Article 68 (1) 1 of the Immigration Control Act" as the applicable provisions of the disposition of this case stated in the applicable provisions of this case. The defendant is likely to harm the interest of the Republic of Korea or public safety of the Republic of Korea.