1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a foreigner of the nationality of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “Pakic Republic”) who entered and stays in the Republic of Korea on August 30, 2013 as a sojourn status for study (D-2) in the Republic of Pakistan, and was changed to the sojourn status on June 3, 2014 (G-1) and is still staying until now.

B. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment on the ground that he/she applied for a false entry visa to study in the Republic of Korea using the standard admission permit issued by an international graduate school of the Asian University as if he/she entered the Republic of Korea for the purpose of employment and entered the Republic of Korea for the purpose of studying in the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, on August 31, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of indictment to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2016 (1) 1, 46(1)2, and 3, 7-2, 7-1(1)3, and 11(4) of the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 14106, Mar. 29, 2016; hereinafter “the Act”) with the departure deadline set as the departure order on September 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 2, Eul 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was merely a graduate student who used a holiday. This act does not constitute an act detrimental to the interest and public safety of the Republic of Korea or detrimental to the economic order, etc. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful as it did not exist. 2) In light of the circumstances seen earlier and the fact that the instant disposition was a minor case for which suspension of indictment was imposed by a prosecutor, etc., the instant disposition was deemed to have been abused and abused by the Plaintiff’s discretionary power, rather than for the public interest purpose to be achieved thereby.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination as to the existence of the 1 Disposition Nos. 4 and 4.