1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On May 7, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the tourism channel (B-2) status on May 7, 2008, and changed the status of stay to the qualification of overseas Korean (F-4) on May 19, 2008.

On April 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a deportation order under Articles 46(1)3 and 13, and 11(1)3 and 41(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2015, on the grounds that the said judgment became final and conclusive after having been sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court (2013 High Court Decision 2489).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and all of the arguments' defenses prior to the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The defendant's defense that the plaintiff had already left the Republic of Korea voluntarily, and the disposition of this case has been achieved, so there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Since an administrative disposition loses its effect upon the completion of the enforcement, it shall be deemed that there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of cancellation or invalidation of the administrative disposition after the completion of the enforcement, barring any special circumstance to deem that there is a violation of any legal interest due to the remaining external form of the administrative disposition. However, in a case where the record of the above administrative disposition is treated at a disadvantage in the future, and thus becomes a legal condition for statutory aggravation, the risk that the other party may be subject to aggravated administrative disposition according to the statutory aggravation requirements due to the existence of such administrative disposition is specific and realistic, and thus, the other party has a legal interest in lawsuit to remove the disadvantage through a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the administrative disposition after the enforcement is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du14106, Mar. 25, 2005; 2003Du1684, Jun. 22, 2006).