1. Whether to recognize standing to sue;

A. Whether a standing to sue is determined in a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition is not determined depending on whether it is the other party to the pertinent disposition, but on whether there is a legal interest to seek revocation thereof. Here, legal interest refers to a case where there is a direct and specific interest protected by a law based on the pertinent disposition, and it does not include cases where there is no indirect or factual or economic interest (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du8565, Sept. 28, 2001, etc.).

B. The former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 15492, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “Immigration Control Act”) provides that when a foreigner enters the Republic of Korea, he/she shall, in principle, obtain a valid passport and a visa issued by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea (Article 7(1)), and that the foreigner shall undergo an entry inspection at the entry and departure port where the foreigner enters the Republic of Korea (Article 12(1)). Therefore, even where a foreigner has already obtained a visa, the foreigner is not exempted from entry inspection at the entry and departure port. The issuance of a visa is not a decision granting the foreigner a right to enter the Republic of Korea or guaranteeing entry, but rather, a foreigner has the nature as a recommendation of preliminary conditions or entry permission

Meanwhile, the Immigration Control Act provides that a foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea shall have such status of stay as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 10(1)), the standards and procedures for the issuance of visas shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice (Article 8(3)). According to the delegation, Article 12 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act provides various status of stay for foreigners, and among which the status of stay is determined “spouse (F-6)” [the spouse], “a person recognized by the Minister of Justice as a father or mother who raises a child born in a marriage relationship with a citizen (including a de facto marital relationship),” [b], “a person who is unable to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship due to the death or disappearance of his/her spouse while staying in the Republic of Korea with a national spouse or other reasons not attributable to him/her” (Article 28(3) of the Immigration Control Act). The legislative attitude of all countries around the world to recognize freedom of entry into the Republic of Korea is difficult to recognize the foreigner’s freedom of entry through the legislation and public order and management of entry.

A foreigner disputing the disposition of refusal to issue a visa is not yet asserting that he/she will enter the Republic of Korea without entering the Republic of Korea, and there is no substantial relation with the Republic of Korea or a legal and policy need to recognize the legal interest to seek the revocation of the relevant disposition. On the other hand, since a foreigner disputing the disposition of refusal to allow naturalization under the Nationality Act, the disposition of refusal to change the status of stay under the Immigration Control Act, the order of deportation, or the order of deportation is a person who has lawfully entered the Republic of Korea for a considerable period of time and stayed, a foreigner already has a substantial relationship with the Republic of Korea or has a legal interest in the relevant disposition that is legally protected under the Republic of Korea, it should be deemed that

Furthermore, Article 36 of the People's Republic of China Act (hereinafter "China") explicitly provides that a foreigner does not object to all immigration-related decisions, such as the denial of visa issuance, and thus, the Republic of Korea bears the responsibility to allow a Chinese national to file an administrative litigation against his/her refusal of visa issuance by the Korean immigration administration in accordance with the principle of reciprocity in international law.

Considering the legal nature of the issuance of the visa, the legislative purpose of the Immigration Control Act, the substantial relationship between the Republic of Korea and the applicant for the issuance of the visa, and the principle of reciprocity, it is reasonable to view that there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition of refusal to issue the visa to foreigners

C. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.

1) The Nonparty, who is a national of the Republic of Korea, visited China for four and five days from March 6, 2010 through an international marriage broker, was introduced to the Plaintiff, who is a Chinese national, and the Nonparty reported a marriage in Korea on April 5, 2010, and the Plaintiff reported a marriage in China on April 26, 2010.

2) On the ground that the Plaintiff was married with the Nonparty, the Plaintiff filed an application for the issuance of the visa to the Defendant once a year from May 2010 to May 2013, each year for the issuance of the visa to the Nonparty. However, the Defendant rejected the issuance of the visa to the Plaintiff four times on the ground that the Defendant, after conducting a fact-finding survey by the public officials belonging to the Immigration Office having jurisdiction over the Non-Party’s residence, “the lack of family supporting ability of the Nonparty” was considered to be insufficient (the fourth refusal refusal disposition against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2013 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff).

D. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it shall be deemed that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition of refusal to issue visas to the Plaintiff, a Chinese national.

E. Nevertheless, the lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking revocation on the ground that the Plaintiff is the direct counterpart to the instant refusal disposition, and determined the illegality of the instant refusal disposition. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on standing to sue in an appeal litigation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, and this case is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment. The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the losing party. It is so

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)