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. On May 22, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of China as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China for a visa on March 9, 2007 (F-1). On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with B on November 20, 2009, and changed the status of stay to the spouse (F-2, F-6-a) of the citizen on February 3, 2010.
B. On June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming divorce and consolation money, etc. against B on the grounds of frequent gambling, assault, etc. (Seoul Family Court Decision 2012ddan4661) and B’s service by public notice to B, and on February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a favorable judgment with the purport that “B is divorced. B would pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 as consolation money,” and on March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff and B divorced as the said judgment became final and conclusive.
C. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the sojourn period, and the period of stay was extended by July 27, 2014 as a married parent (F-6-c). Since then, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the sojourn period again to the Defendant on July 7, 2014, the Defendant rejected the extension of the sojourn period on October 22, 2014 due to “other reasons, such as lack of authenticity and lack of proof of causes attributable to the former spouse.”
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had been engaged in a normal marital life with B and caused the divorce due to reasons attributable to B such as assault, etc., which led to the Plaintiff’s failure to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship with his spouse due to reasons not attributable to the Plaintiff, constitutes a case where the Plaintiff is unable to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship with his spouse. Since the Plaintiff leased a part of the building after the extension of the period of stay on May 31, 2013 and operated the restaurant, a huge economic loss is anticipated due to the instant disposition, the instant disposition denying the extension