1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 1998, the plaintiff was investigated into suspicion of evasion of compulsory execution, etc., and left the United States on February 20, 1998.

B. On March 13, 1998, the prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office issued an arrest warrant to the plaintiff, and made a decision to suspend prosecution on the grounds that the location of the plaintiff is unknown.

C. On July 21, 2014, the chief of the Seoul Western Police Station requested the Defendant to restrict the issuance of a passport to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant request”) pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant, upon receipt of the said request, registered the Plaintiff as the subject of the restriction on issuance of the passport (hereinafter “instant registration”).

On July 24, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for the reissuance of a passport to the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the reissuance of a passport against the Plaintiff under Article 12(1)1 of the Passport Act on the ground of the instant request on July 29, 2019 (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Judgment on the main defense as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is procedural defect that did not go through the examination procedure under Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act, and that there is no ground for disposition under Article 12(1)1 of the former Passport Act (amended by Act No. 14606, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “former Passport Act”) or there is substantive defect that deviates from or abused the discretionary authority, and thus, the registration of this case should be revoked.

B. The part of the main claim of this case among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful and dismissed merely because the defendant's main claim of this case is an internal act of an administrative organization.

C. “Disposition, etc.”, which is the subject of a judgment 1, is conducted by an administrative agency.