1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who was a national of the People’s Republic of China, entered the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit (C-3) on June 26, 201, and was staying in the Republic of Korea on July 9, 201, and was changed to the status of stay for general training (D-4) on July 9, 201, and obtained permission for change to the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) on February 15, 2012, obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on January 2, 2013 (as until February 14, 2015), and obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on December 31, 2014 (as until December 14, 2016).

B. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant submitted a false standard employment contract as if the Plaintiff had worked in B, and received a written confirmation of extension of the period of sojourn from the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and subsequently discovered the fact that the Defendant submitted an application for extension of the period of sojourn, and ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea until June 17, 2016 pursuant to Articles 89(1)2 and 68(1)3 of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The procedural defect order constitutes a disposition subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with a prior notification and an opportunity to state his opinion while rendering the instant disposition, and did not follow the procedures prescribed in Articles 21 through 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, such as not giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s non-existence of the ground for disposition was merely obtained a short-term visit (C-3) visa at the time of entry, and thus, did not obtain entry permission by fraud or other improper means.

Therefore, the instant disposition that ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea is unlawful.

3. The plaintiff who has abused discretionary power is legally entitled to visiting workers after receiving them.