출국명령처분취소
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 March 20, 2007, the Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), filed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on March 20, 2007, and entered Korea as a citizen's spouse (F-6-1) on the grounds of a marriage report with B on December 26, 2007, and filed a divorce lawsuit against B on September 9, 2008 with the Seoul Family Court (2008ddan84956).
B. On February 6, 2009, the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment in the above divorce lawsuit pending by public notice on the grounds that the whereabouts of B, who is the other party, is unknown, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 12, 2009.
C. On March 17, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for permission for naturalization to the Defendant, and withdrawn on July 18, 201. On July 18, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for the change of status of stay as a permanent resident (F-5) but was rejected on June 7, 2012.
Then, the Plaintiff was granted the extension of the period of stay several times from the Defendant under the qualification of the marriage division (F-6-3). On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant on the part of August 25, 2015, however, the close examination was conducted on the Plaintiff’s normal maintenance of marriage before the Plaintiff’s marriage division and the cause for divorce is unclear. The Defendant is deemed to have entered the Republic of Korea upon the Plaintiff’s disguised marriage broker C’s invitation to obtain a visa for marriage and entered the Republic of Korea by the invitation, and on January 15, 2016, ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea until February 12, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, 5, Eul 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that he was entitled to a divorce judgment by service by publication because he was unable to adapt to the family life and went home to his family life and became missing, and the plaintiff and the defendant have a genuine intention to marry.