1. The Defendant’s disposition of departure order issued against the Plaintiff on January 14, 2016 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2, 1994, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a passport (O-3, 1974) in the name of “B” (O-3, 1974), and obtained the status of stay for industrial training (D-3). On November 6, 1997, it was impossible to identify the location of the Plaintiff without permission. The Plaintiff was ordered to order departure on September 23, 1997 and voluntarily depart from the Republic of Korea on September 25, 1997.

B. After that, on December 23, 2001, the Plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea after obtaining the status of stay for corporate investment (D-8) on August 12, 2002 from February 28, 201, with the status of stay for trade management (D-9) from February 28, 2013 while entering the Republic of Korea as a passport under the name of “A (C)” (hereinafter “second passport”).

C. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea until February 13, 2016 pursuant to Articles 68(1)1, 46(1)1 through 3, 7(1), 7-2 subparag. 2, 11(1)3, and 11(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s use of the above-mentioned passport constitutes a person whose identity was not issued.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s 1, 4, and Eul’s 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s first and second passports all do not constitute a valid passport issued against the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff merely received a second passport from the four-pact government on the basis of an application made by the four-pact government on the date of birth on which the date of birth is stated accurately because the name on the first passport is long to exceed the name column of the passport. The Plaintiff did not report false personal information for the purpose of hiding the past fact of departure order or washing his status, and applied for the issuance of the visa by using it. Thus, Articles 7(1) and 7-2 subparag. 2 of the Immigration Control Act do not apply for the issuance of the visa.