1. The Defendant’s prohibition of prohibition of departure on March 6, 2017, upon a claim for change in exchange at the trial.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “The second page 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance was followed,” and “from March 6, 2017 to September 6, 2017, the Plaintiff’s period of prohibition of departure was finally extended from March 7, 2017 to September 6, 2017 (hereinafter the “instant disposition”)”. However, except for the case where “the extension of the period of prohibition of departure from March 6, 2017” was written as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in the trial is reasonable, and the disposition of this case is revoked.

(Gu's lawsuit was withdrawn due to a change in the exchange of litigation conducted in the trial, and the judgment of the first instance was invalidated).