1. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant’s deportation order and protection order issued against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a member of a religious organization of a minority ethnic friendship (Chin) with his/her nationality. On June 16, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on the 28th day of the same month. Accordingly, the Defendant changed the Plaintiff’s sojourn status to other (G-1) qualification granted to the refugee applicant on the 30th day of the same month.

B. The Plaintiff is engaged in simple labor by receiving 60,000 won daily remuneration from D companies located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from August 5, 2012 to the 20th day of the same month without obtaining permission for activities outside status of stay from the Defendant.

was discovered.

On August 21, 2012, the defendant violated Article 18 (1) of the Immigration Control Act. However, in consideration of the first fact, the defendant made a notification disposition of penalty of KRW 1 million to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 94 subparagraph 8 of the same Act and Article 102 (1) of the same Act, and subsequently, on the 22th day of the same month, the plaintiff permitted the plaintiff to engage in job-seeking activities in the D company from the same date to December 28 of the same year pursuant to Article 20 of the same Act.

C. On November 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) did not engage in any activity opposing the Plaintiff’s government; (b) did not have been subject to surveillance, arrest, detention, etc. from its government; (c) was restored to multilateral parliamentary politics through the general election in 2010; and (d) was taking a series of democratization measures, such as release of all political offenders and permission for peaceful demonstration, etc. after the Myanmar’s recent political situation, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny refugee status by deeming that it does not constitute a refugee because it is highly likely that the Plaintiff would be subject to political gambling; and (b) the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Minister of Justice on December 24 of the same year and is currently under examination.

On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay and the extension of the permission to engage in activities outside the status of stay. On the same day, the Defendant made a decision to extend the Plaintiff’s period of stay until March 28, 2013.