체류기간연장등불허결정취소
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 August 12, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on August 12, 2008 as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"). On March 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a visa (F-2) and completed the foreigner registration on June 23, 2009.
B. On October 22, 2010, when a report on the extension of the period of stay was not filed by May 4, 2010, the expiration date of the period of stay, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking divorce, etc. (2010ddan5028) against the Jinju branch of the Changwon District Court (2010ddan5028), and also filed a counterclaim (2010ddan5271) against the Plaintiff seeking revocation of the marriage report.
On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Seoul Immigration Office on the ground of the above divorce lawsuit, and thereafter the period of stay has been extended to the status of stay of a married single-party (F-6-3).
C. As of February 11, 2011, the Changwon District Court rendered a ruling of recommending settlement that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant (B) shall be divorced due to the Defendant’s fault. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall not make any monetary claim against the other party for any reason, such as consolation money and division of property, with respect to the divorce of this case except as provided above.” The Plaintiff and the Defendant were divorced as they did not object by both parties, and the said ruling became final and conclusive.
Then, on March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of sojourn period by asserting that the Plaintiff constitutes the status of stay of a spouse (F-6-3). However, the Defendant, after conducting a fact-finding survey with the Plaintiff, deemed that it does not fall under the grounds for extension of sojourn period for reasons such as the uncertainty of the spouse’s causes attributable to the Plaintiff, and rendered a decision of refusal on October 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, 10, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is in Korea.