체류기간연장등불허가처분취소
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, as a foreigner of the nationality of the People’s Republic of China, entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay on March 7, 201 (F-2) after marriage between B and April 6, 2009.
B. After entering the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff divorced from B on May 31, 2012, and on February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the status of stay to the visit movement (F-1) upon filing an application for naturalization with the Defendant.
C. However, on June 11, 2014, when an application for naturalization was rejected, the Plaintiff filed a report of marriage again with B on February 3, 2015, and filed an application for permission, such as the extension of the period of stay, which changed the Plaintiff’s status of stay to the marriage immigration (F-6) on February 12, 2015.
On May 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff to refuse the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the income requirements under Article 9-5(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act and Article 9-5(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act and the notification of income requirements necessary for the issuance of visa for the purpose of marriage stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”). By June 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to leave the country (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 through 4, and 10, the purport of all pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and B met the financial capacity standard by entering into a contract on commercial buildings, operating the place of business, etc. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case must be revoked as unlawful.
B. 1) According to the Immigration Control Act, the permission to change the status of stay granted to the applicant for an activity that differs from the original status of stay. The permission-granting authority has a broad discretion to decide whether to grant the permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of stay, influence on the public interest, requirements for income, etc. 2) As to the instant case, the facts of recognition and evidence Nos. 6 through 10 are as follows.