1. The Defendant’s disposition of departure order issued against the Plaintiff on April 18, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

On March 6, 2003, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on March 6, 2003 and stayed in the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Mussia”), and changed the status of stay to the qualification of study (H-2) on March 9, 2006.

On November 9, 2007, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 1,000,00 (Seoul Western District Court 2007 High Court 2007 High Court 2007 High Court 20062) on the grounds that “the Plaintiff discovered the victim B (the victim) on September 9, 2007, and committed an indecent act by force on the victim’s chests only once with his hand.”

After departure from the Republic of Korea on March 21, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on April 13, 2008 as the status of stay in study (No. D-2) on April 15, 2009, and obtained permission for the extension of the period of stay on March 30, 2010. On August 23, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the extension of the period of stay in general training on December 17, 2010.

Furthermore, on April 11, 201, the Plaintiff obtained permission to change the status of stay in the capacity of overseas Koreans (E-4) and obtained permission to extend the status of stay in the Republic of Korea on April 10, 2013 (the expiration date of the period of stay in the Republic of Korea on April 11, 201).

The Plaintiff filed an application for permission for extension of the period of stay with respect to the Defendant for the Defendant whose period of stay expires. While examining the permission for extension of the said period of stay, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff was in receipt of a summary order due to indecent act by force, as seen earlier, and issued a departure order to the Plaintiff based on Articles 68(1), 46(1)3, and 11(1)3 and 11(4) of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 12421, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The defendant presented his opinion that it is reasonable to place the plaintiff with the entry prohibition for not less than ten years (permanent).

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, all pleadings.