1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the tourism conference (B-2) status on August 9, 2015, and obtained permission to change his/her status of stay as a specific activity (E-7) on August 17, 2015. On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained permission to change his/her status of stay as a Canadian foreigner.

B. The Plaintiff served as a teacher in charge of English and social subjects from September 2016 to June 2017, from “D Teaching Institute” operated by Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as a teacher in charge of English and social subjects.

C. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily depart from the Republic of Korea by July 16, 2017, pursuant to Articles 20, 24, 46(1)8, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff had engaged in activities falling under the status of sojourn (E-7) while staying in the capacity of revolving map (E-2).”

(hereinafter “instant order for departure”). D.

On June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the order for departure of the instant case and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the part seeking revocation of the disposition of entry prohibition on the premise that the Defendant rendered a one-year disposition of entry prohibition against the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant asserted that this part of the lawsuit is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any such disposition and the Defendant did not seek revocation of the disposition that did not exist.

According to the evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 7, the fact that the Plaintiff stated “a person who is prohibited from entering the Republic of Korea” in the review order column of the notice of decision on immigration review against the Plaintiff may be acknowledged.

However, the above-mentioned evidence and evidence are presented.