강제퇴거명령취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 18, 2007, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China, entered the status of stay as "Marriage (F-2)" due to marriage with B on March 18, 201, and the period of stay expires on March 18, 2013. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a deportation order (hereinafter "instant disposition") to the Plaintiff on June 19, 2014 on the ground of illegal stay and employment during that period, is either not disputed between the parties, or recognized by Gap evidence 1 and evidence 1.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the husband’s false statement made by the husband B and filed an appeal for a unilateral divorce by service by public notice, and that it was ten years in Korea and that it is not a situation for the Plaintiff to live back to China, the instant disposition that directly orders the Plaintiff to leave is too harsh.
(b) A foreigner under the relevant legal principles may sojourn in the Republic of Korea within the scope of his/her sojourn status and sojourn period, and a person who intends to be employed in the Republic of Korea shall obtain the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and may be forced to withdraw from the Republic of Korea.
The Immigration Control Act is a legal system to ensure the entry into and departure from Korea and foreigners and the stay of foreigners and to ensure fair review of the entry into and departure from Korea, and in particular, matters concerning entry into and departure from Korea of foreigners are placed in the territory of broad policy discretion in that it is necessary to perform
C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence seen earlier including Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the defects of the disposition in this case, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, are objectively unreasonable and thus, are deemed to be considerably unreasonable under the social norms.