1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a foreigner of Canada's nationality and is staying in Korea as an overseas Korean (F-4) status.

B. On May 18, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a conviction of the two-year suspended sentence (120 hours community service order) for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (120 hours) in the Daegu District Court on May 16, 2018 due to the fact that the Plaintiff sold marijuana six times from March 28, 2017 to August 25, 2018, and was sentenced to a conviction of the two-year suspended sentence (20 hours community service order) (20 hours), and was sentenced to a fine for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (14), while staying in the Republic of Korea, on two occasions, to be subject to deportation. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to leave the Republic of Korea voluntarily after arranging the corporations, etc., the Defendant was ordered to leave the Republic of Korea pursuant to Articles 11(1)3 and 4, 46(1)3, 13, and 68(1)17 of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “the order of departure of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 3 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition prohibiting permanent entry under the premise that the defendant, while making an order for departure of this case, had a disposition prohibiting entry into the plaintiff. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio.

B. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the fact that the notice of decision on examining an immigration offender against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant notice”) states “I (the Plaintiff) shall be punished by the prohibition of entry permanently after departure order is issued.”

However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff signed the confirmation column of the instant notification, and the said confirmation column stated “a confirmation of receipt of the notification of departure order,” and did not state the term of entry prohibition.