1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2, 1994, the Plaintiff first entered the country to a visa for technical training (D-3) using a passport (hereinafter “first passport”) under the name of “B (C)” (hereinafter “B”) as of November 2, 1994.

The plaintiff left 4 days after entry and illegally stayed in 40 days after departure. The plaintiff was subject to the order of departure along with the two-year disposition of visa issuance regulation and left the Republic of Korea on February 27, 1998.

B. On December 25, 199, the Plaintiff, who was exempted from a visa issued in the name of “A (D)” (hereinafter “second-use passport”), re-entrys into the Republic of Korea on February 1, 200.

On February 16, 200, the Plaintiff had been exempted from a visa and stayed illegally after the lapse of the period of sojourn after obtaining an exemption from the visa. The Plaintiff acquired the status of sojourn for non-professional employment (E-9) on September 19, 2003 in accordance with the measure of legality of illegal aliens.

On September 8, 2005, the Plaintiff was married to a national of the Republic of Korea after the lapse of the period of stay in another City, and on May 9, 2006, acquired the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-2 at that time, and F-6 at that time).

C. The Defendant discovered the fact that the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea using the passport Nos. 1 and 2 once in the Plaintiff’s examination of the application for permission for naturalization, and issued an order of departure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by setting the departure time limit as March 18, 2017 pursuant to Articles 7(1), 7-2 subparag. 2, 11-2, 11(1)4, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act to the Plaintiff on December 29, 2016. The instant disposition written in the instant disposition contains Article 7-2 subparag. 1 of the Immigration Control Act, but comprehensively taking account of the following purport: (a) the written evidence No. 5 of the instant disposition and the entire purport of oral argument, it appears that it is a clerical error under Article 7-2 subparag. 2 of the Immigration Control Act).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1 in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act is against the disposition of this case.