체류기간연장불허가및출국명령취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 4, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into the Republic of Mongolia as a foreigner of Mongolia, and changed the status of stay for short-term (C-2) on April 15, 2009 into the status of business investment (D-8) and the status of stay for trade management (D-9) on July 1, 2013.
On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for permission to extend the period of stay to the Defendant.
B. On January 27, 2014, the Defendant issued an order for departure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “There is a concern for doing any act detrimental to the interest or public safety of the Republic of Korea prescribed in Articles 68(1)1, 46(1), and 11 of the Immigration Control Act, and there is a concern for doing any act detrimental to the economic or social order or good morals.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be deemed likely to undermine public safety and order. The instant disposition constitutes deviation and abuse of discretion in light of the circumstances surrounding the crime, etc.
① The Plaintiff was living in Mongolia without any previous conviction.
In Korea, criminal punishment has been imposed several times, but this is an accident that occurs as a communication problem and has occurred as an accident, and most of the accidents have been agreed with the victim.
In addition, although the police officer received a summary order, it became final and conclusive because the police officer did not object to the formal trial procedure or did not guide the formal trial procedure.
② A summary order dated January 23, 2009, which was rendered by the Plaintiff, was that the Plaintiff did not have any fact at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer.
③ A disposition that was made on May 12, 2009 without the right to institute a public prosecution was treated as two assaults despite the Plaintiff’s breathing and reporting it to the police.
④ On October 30, 2009, the summary order took place in the process of the plaintiff's arms's resistance.
(5) A disposition that has no right to institute a public prosecution on November 8, 2010 shall be made.