1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part which is written by the court of first instance as to this case under Paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

(1) The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in this court, while filing an appeal, are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking revocation of the extension of the period of prohibition of departure stated in the purport of the claim is justifiable). The part of the first instance judgment, which was revised, extended “the extension of the period of prohibition of departure from the date of April 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”),” and “the extension of the period of prohibition of departure from the date of April 30, 2018,” and again extended the period of prohibition against the Plaintiff from November 3, 2018 to May 2, 2019 (hereinafter “the extension of the period of prohibition of departure from the date of October 26, 2018”).

Part II of the first instance judgment, " May 8, 2018" in Part 20 shall be applied to " November 4, 2018."

Part 3 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court, "A No. 1, 2, and 6" shall be applied to "A. 1, 2, 6, and 1."

On the 7th page of the first instance judgment, “No evidence exists to acknowledge it,” “No evidence to acknowledge it is difficult to recognize it only with the images of No. 5-1 to No. 3 of the Plaintiff’s submission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.”

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim that the court changed the exchange in this court is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(4) The term of prohibition of departure on April 30, 2018, seeking revocation of the extension of the term of prohibition of departure on April 30, 2018, was withdrawn by the exchange change in this court, and the judgment of the first instance was invalidated). The term of prohibition of departure on the basis of the date of closing argument in this