1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court on this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of proportionality, and it is excessively disadvantageous to the Plaintiff compared to the public interest to achieve the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Determination 1) Article 11(1) of the Immigration Act of the Republic of Korea provides that the Minister of Justice may prohibit a foreigner from entering the Republic of Korea (Article 46(1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that “Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that the foreigner might engage in any conduct detrimental to the interest or public safety of the Republic of Korea (Article 3).” Article 46(1)3 of the same Act provides that “The head of the Regional Immigration Service may force a foreigner to leave the Republic of Korea after the entry of the grounds for prohibition of entry falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11(1).” Article 68(1)1 of the same Act provides that “The head of the Regional Immigration Service may order departure from the Republic of Korea at his/her own expense, but the head of the Regional Immigration Service who intends to depart from the Republic of Korea voluntarily at his/her own expense may order departure from the Republic of Korea, taking into account the administrative purpose and evidence of the foreigner Gap including the provisions, the language and text, and system of departure order.”