체류기간연장등불허가처분취소
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.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff, on April 19, 2007, entered the Republic of Korea with a non-professional employment (E-9) qualification as Vietnam, and the period of sojourn expired on April 19, 2008.
B. B married with a Korean national male on April 1, 2009, and naturalization on December 3, 2013, but reported a divorce on October 28, 2014.
C. On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report of marriage with B, and on August 27, 2015, filed an application to change the status of stay with the Defendant as the spouse of the citizen (F-6-1).
On August 28, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rejection of the said application on the ground of “an illegal stay for less than three years, less than seven years, and more than seven years and four months after the acquisition of the nationality of his/her spouse”; on the 31st of the same month, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the voluntary departure by September 30, 2015 pursuant to Articles 17(1), 24(1), 46(1)8, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act.
(hereinafter the above return notification and departure notification are referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (including each number), the testimony of witness B of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The requirements for “three years after the acquisition of spouse’s nationality” under the Immigration Control Act as the criteria for examining the status of stay for the Plaintiff’s assertion should be applied separately from the case of newly granting the status of stay and extending the status of stay.
The Plaintiff and B are married married couple, and B gave birth to their children in early 2016, and if the three-year standards are strictly applied, the Plaintiff shall depart from Vietnam, and the Plaintiff shall not be issued a visa for entry into the Republic of Korea until December 3, 2016, thereby creating a risk of failure in the family for a long time due to the prolonged separation of residence.
The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not fully consider these circumstances, is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.
B. Relevant statutes are attached thereto.