1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of departure order among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Details of the disposition

On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 by the Incheon District Court on April 28, 2016, and on January 12, 2017, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 700,00,000 as a fine for an intrusion upon residence, etc., while the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-9) sojourn status on March 30, 2017 and was undergoing a departure inspection to China on April 14, 2017.

On April 14, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Act as above during the past domestic stay, the Defendant: (a) determined the departure period on May 14, 2017, and issued an order for departure under Article 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant order for departure”); and (b) revoked the Plaintiff’s status of stay pursuant to Article 89(1)5 of the Immigration Control Act, at the same time, on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to deportation under the Immigration Control Act, but the Plaintiff intended to voluntarily depart.

(2) The court below held that there was no legal interest in seeking revocation of the order for departure of this case since the plaintiff already left the Republic of Korea and the purpose of the order for departure of this case has been achieved. The court below held that there was no legal interest in seeking revocation of the order for departure of this case.

According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff voluntarily left the Republic of Korea on May 14, 2017 after receiving the instant order for departure on April 14, 2017. The Plaintiff at the time of the instant order for departure is not a person subject to prohibition of entry.

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff voluntarily departs from the Republic of Korea in accordance with the order of departure of this case, the order of departure of this case has become effective and its legal effect has become extinguished as the execution has been completed, and the plaintiff has legal interest to seek the cancellation of the order