(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.9.22. 선고 2016누81620 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of departure order issued to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2016 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. cite the reasoning of the first instance judgment;

The reasoning for the entry in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment by this court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Additional determination by this Court

In light of the following, the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal: “(i) the Plaintiff made an agreement on the Plaintiff’s mistake in depth, agreed with the victims, and paid the fine in full; ② Article 46(1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that a person who was sentenced to an imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment is subject to compulsory expulsion from the Republic of Korea; ③ in the event the instant disposition becomes final and conclusive, the Plaintiff would be hedging with the mother studying abroad; (iii) the Plaintiff would be at the same time suffer damage not to graduate from university; and (iv) the marriage with the Korean woman-friendly relationship expected to enter the Republic of Korea is practically difficult; and (v) the restriction on entry due to the instant disposition is more likely to be prohibited for a long period of time as it falls under Article 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act, the instant disposition is unlawful since it deviates from and abused its discretion.”

However, the above arguments presented by the Plaintiff in this court are new emphasizing the Plaintiff’s damages that the Plaintiff had already asserted in the first instance trial or that the Plaintiff would suffer from the instant disposition. In full view of the various circumstances cited earlier in the characteristics of the immigration control administration to promote the national interest and safety by properly controlling and coordinating the entry and departure of foreigners into and departure from the Republic of Korea and foreigners (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du5992, Feb. 28, 2013), even considering all the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff in this court, it is difficult to deem the instant disposition to be unlawful by deviating from and abusing the discretionary power. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are borne by the losing plaintiff.