1. From February 5, 2017 to February 3, 2017, the Defendant among the instant lawsuits that were changed in exchange at the trial.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the corresponding part, except for adding “63” to “39” in Chapter 15 of the judgment of the court of second instance. Thus, this part 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.

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of prohibition of departure (from February 5, 2016 to August 4, 2016) against the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure on August 1, 2016 (from August 5, 2016 to February 4, 2017) and issued another disposition of extending the period of prohibition of departure on February 3, 2017 (from February 5, 2017 to August 4, 2017).

(2) If the effective period is specified in an administrative disposition on February 5, 2017 to March 28, 2017, the effect or execution of the administrative disposition is not suspended, the administrative disposition becomes null and void upon the lapse of the above period, barring any special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remaining shape of the disposition after the expiration of the said period.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1946, Jul. 8, 2004). The effective period of the instant disposition is from February 5, 2017 to August 4, 2017, and the part ordering prohibition of departure from February 5, 2017 to March 28, 2017, among which, as of the date of the closing of argument in the trial, the period has expired as of February 5, 2017 to March 28, 2017, and it does not constitute a requirement for disadvantageous disposition against the Plaintiff or an aggravated requirement. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a benefit to seek revocation of the said part.

Among the instant lawsuits, the part requesting the revocation of the extension of the period of prohibition of departure from February 5, 2017 to March 28, 2017 is unlawful.

The disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition") on March 2017.