beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.07 2015누57927

체류기간연장등불허가처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

원고는 중화인민공화국 국적자로, 2006. 9. 29. B와 혼인신고를 하고, 2007. 4. 15. 방문동거 자격(F-2) 구 출입국관리법 시행령(2011. 11. 1. 대통령령 제23274호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제12조 [별표 1]에 의하면, ‘국민의 배우자’는 제27호 가목에 해당하여 거주(F-2) 체류자격을 가지게 되는데, 을 제3, 5호증의 표제가 ‘체류자격변경 신청자 실태조사보고서(F-1-7⇒F-6-1)'이므로 원고는 B와 이혼하면서 체류자격이 방문동거(F-1)로 변경되었던 것으로 보인다.

On March 25, 2008, after entering the Republic of Korea, they were divorced from B.

On June 18, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for nationality to the Defendant on December 30, 201, but was subject to a disposition of non-permission from the Defendant. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for nationality to the Defendant again, but was subject to a disposition of non-permission again by the Defendant on October 21, 2013 due to a failure of written examination.

On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a report of marriage with C on August 28, 2012, and applied for the change of status of stay to the qualification for marriage immigration (F-6) on October 4, 2013. However, on February 20, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the change of status of stay on the ground that the marriage authenticity was lacking.

On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff again requested the Defendant to change his/her status of stay (F-6) to the marriage immigration status (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on November 26, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the said application against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the lack of authenticity of marriage, lack of income requirements, etc.” was “other reasons” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was legitimate, by introduction of Eul, who was a spouse of the plaintiff, and married with C.

The plaintiff and C shall reside together in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and C shall publicize the transit of phishing in the broadcasting station.