1. The part concerning the claim for the cancellation of the protection order among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff has entered the Republic of Korea on March 8, 2015 with Denmark nationality as the status of stay for visa exemption (B-1).

From April 1, 2015 to April 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a deportation order (hereinafter “instant deportation order”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 46(1)8 of the Immigration Control Act on May 15, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 18(1) of the Immigration Control Act by taking English language language lessons in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public book book (hereinafter “instant public book book”) located in Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant public book book”) even though the Plaintiff did not obtain the status of stay eligible for employment, and issued the protection order (hereinafter “instant protection order”) pursuant to Article 63(1) of the same Act.

The Defendant executed the instant deportation order on September 16, 2015, and the Plaintiff does not currently stay in the Republic of Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument, and plaintiff's assertion of relevant laws and regulations are not employed for the purpose of receiving wages, but only visiting the public book room of this case as volunteer service and play with children.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s illegal job-seeking activities is unlawful.

In view of the fact that even if the Plaintiff was engaged in illegal job-seeking activities, the issue of crime, etc. was not caused during his/her stay in the Republic of Korea; the period of his/her job-seeking activities is more than ten days; the Plaintiff’s departure from the Republic of Korea is less than five years; and the Plaintiff cannot enter the Republic of Korea unless five years have passed after his/her departure from the Republic of Korea due to the instant deportation order, each disposition of this case

It is as stated in the relevant statutes.

The part demanding the revocation of the instant protection order is lawful.