1. The part concerning the claim for revocation of the entry prohibition among the instant lawsuits shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a foreigner of nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China").

On December 18, 1992, the Plaintiff was forced to leave on November 9, 2001 on the ground of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (M-3) while entering the Republic of Korea after having obtained a short-term visit (C-3) qualification visa with his own passport.

B. When the Plaintiff was unable to enter the Republic of Korea with his own passport, the Plaintiff obtained a short-term qualification visa (C-2) with a false name passport issued in the name of foreigner C of Chinese nationality, and entered the Republic of Korea on March 28, 2002.

On January 20, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with D citizens of the Republic of Korea under his own name, and left China on June 12, 2005.

C. On August 11, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on August 11, 2005 and was staying there on February 4, 2010 with a spouse (F-2) visa issued in his/her name.

After having been divorced from D on July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit visa (C-3) with his/her passport on February 14, 2013.

Based on Articles 68(1)1, 46(1)1, and 7(1) of the Immigration Act, the Defendant issued an order for departure on June 20, 2017 to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a visa issued by using the name passport on March 28, 2002,” and issued an order for departure on July 20, 2017, on the ground that “the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a visa issued by using the name passport.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s 1 through 7, 16, 17, and Eul’s 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff sought revocation of a ten-year entry prohibition disposition on the premise that the Defendant was also subject to the ten-year entry prohibition disposition, other than the instant disposition, against the Plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant did not make a ten-year entry prohibition disposition against the plaintiff, the defendant set up a defense prior to the merits.

Modern, No. 3-W.