1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

The plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition stated in the purport of the claim, and the court of first instance accepted only the claim for revocation of the order of departure, and dismissed the claim for revocation of the disposition of entry prohibition.

Accordingly, only the defendant appealed.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the claim for cancellation of the order of departure corresponding to the part against which the defendant lost according to the scope of appeal by the defendant.

Details of the disposition

A. The plaintiff is a foreigner of nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China").

On December 18, 1992, the Plaintiff was forced to leave on November 9, 2001 on the ground of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by entering the Republic of Korea on December 18, 1992 with a short-term visit (C-3) qualification visa issued in his own passport, and the illegal stay from January 18, 1993 to November 5, 2001.

B. When the Plaintiff was unable to enter the Republic of Korea with his own passport, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on March 28, 2002 with a short-term qualification visa (C-2) under the name passport issued in the name of foreigner C (C and E) of Chinese nationality, and completed a marriage report with D in his own name on January 20, 205.

The defendant issued a departure order to the plaintiff on June 12, 2005 on the ground that the plaintiff had illegally stayed from July 29, 2004 to June 12, 2005, and the plaintiff voluntarily left China.

C. After that, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on August 11, 2005 and stayed in China on February 4, 2010 with a visa issued in his/her name as spouse (F-2).

After having been divorced from D on July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) visa (hereinafter “instant visa”) with his/her passport on February 14, 2013.

The Plaintiff changed the status of stay to the qualification for visit (F-1) on May 20, 2013 by using the instant visa, and extended the period of stay for four times since the change to the status of stay.