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, an overseas Korean of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), was staying in the Republic of Korea as a sojourn status of visiting employment (H-2) from July 4, 2007.

According to the "Guidance Manual for each Status of Sojourn" prepared by the Ministry of Justice, an overseas Korean who stays in the Republic of Korea as a visiting employment qualification shall be issued a certificate of recognition of employment in construction business in order for an overseas Korean to be employed in construction business

The Plaintiff was issued a certificate of recognition of employment for construction business as of May 18, 2012.

On February 10, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s sojourn status for visit and employment pursuant to Article 89(1)3 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 12421, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the conditions of permission for sojourn status for visit and employment on the construction site on November 23, 2012 and December 6, 2013, even though the term of validity of the Plaintiff’s employment recognition certificate for construction business expired, and issued an order for departure (the date of departure, Mar. 10, 2014) pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the validity of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the defendant issued the disposition of this case on the basis of guidelines for ordering departure when overseas Koreans have been exposed at least twice without a valid certificate of employment recognition of construction business.

However, such guidelines have no legal effect since they are publicly announced, and thus, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be justifiable.

In addition, even if the legal effect of the above guidelines is recognized, the Plaintiff was merely discovered once, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as a disposition violating the guidelines set by the Defendant himself.

The plaintiff was issued a certificate of employment recognition of construction business from May 19, 201 to May 18, 201 and performed legitimate employment activities.