1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff, who is a foreigner of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (hereinafter referred to as the "Ligle"), entered the Republic of Korea on July 5, 2006, and left the Republic of Korea on June 30, 2009.

On September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff re-enters into the non-professional employment status (HE-9) and obtained a stay permit until September 28, 2012. However, the Plaintiff did not depart from the Republic of Korea for the maximum period of stay fees. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status to the Defendant.

On November 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff is likely to flee; and (b) issued a protective order (other grounds for protection: the period from November 25, 2013 to December 4, 2013; hereinafter “the first protective order”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 51 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 12421, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter the same).

On November 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a deportation order (hereinafter “instant deportation order”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 46(1)8 and 17(1) of the Immigration Control Act, and issued a deportation order under Article 63 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant protection order”) on the same day. The Defendant issued the instant deportation order and the instant protection order in combination with the instant deportation order and the instant protection order.

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of each disposition of this case, the plaintiff's procedural illegality of each disposition of this case is substantially identical to the arrest and detention of foreigners, and the compulsory departure order causes the deprivation of all foreigners' living relations in the Republic of Korea, and the fundamental rights of the above disposition are considerably limited.

Therefore, the degree of due process required to comply with each of the dispositions of this case shall be deemed to be high.

The first protective order issued by the defendant was an emergency protective order under Article 51 (3) of the Immigration Control Act.

An emergency protection order shall be issued by a foreigner.