1. The part dismissing the plaintiff's claim among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the above part shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the disposition is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 4 of the same Act to No. 16 of the same Act). Thus, the court's explanation as to this part is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. In a case where the effective period of the administrative disposition of this case is determined on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, if the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated upon the lapse of the above period, and there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is being infringed upon due to remaining external form

(2) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a legal interest to seek the revocation of the instant disposition, on the grounds that: (a) the term of validity of the instant disposition is from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016; and (b) the validity of the instant disposition has expired due to the lapse of the relevant period; and (c) the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of prohibition of departure in the past under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Immigration Control Act, does not affect a new disposition of prohibition of departure, etc.; or (d) the remaining external form of the instant disposition has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, on the grounds that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim (the part that rejected the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the extension of the period from January 30, 2016 to June 30, 2016 among the extension of the period for prohibition of departure, which was issued against the Plaintiff on January 8, 2016) is unfair, and thus, it is so unfair. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the said part is dismissed, and the remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance remains.