1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Pakic Republic”), entered the Republic of Korea. At the time, the Plaintiff had a trade management visa (D-9; hereinafter “instant visa”) issued on September 18, 2017.

B. Based on Articles 46(1)1 and 3, 7(1), 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act, the Defendant issued a deportation order and protection order on the part of the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant visa is an inappropriate visa issued by the Plaintiff by unlawful means (hereinafter “instant deportation order,” and “instant protection order,” and collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff did not obtain a visa by unlawful means, and even if the visa of this case is not valid, this is due to the failure to perform the duties of the Korean Embassy staff stationed Malaysia in charge of issuing the visa, and the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact.

B. The Plaintiff made an entry into the Republic of Korea and invested a considerable amount of money for the operation of the restaurant, with the belief of a valid visa issued erroneously due to the absence of the duties of the Embassy personnel stationed in Malaysia. Each of the dispositions of this case ordering such a plaintiff to be subject to deportation and protection are against the principle of the protection of trust, or is unlawful as it is in violation of the principle of discretionary power.

나. 이 사건 강제퇴거명령의 적법 여부 ⑴ 처분사유의 존부 ㈎ 을 제2 내지 8호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 2017. 2. 23. 대한민국에 단기상용비자(C-3)로 입국한 후 대한민국 내에 있는 인도음식점을 인수하여 운영하기 위하여 2017. 5....