체류연장불허처분취소
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 January 16, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) status on a short-term visit (C-1), and changed the status of stay into the Republic of Korea (G-1), but reported the marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on June 24, 2008, and was staying in the Republic of Korea on October 9, 2008 after changing the status of stay (F-6) to the spouse of the citizen of the Republic of Korea, and applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant on June
B. On December 26, 2012, on the ground that the Defendant failed to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship as a result of the fact-finding survey, the Defendant issued the instant disposition rejecting the extension of the above sojourn period against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not communicate with each other as a matter of alcohol, gambling, and living expenses, etc. around March 2012. In so doing, the Plaintiff reported the Plaintiff to an illegal Stay, thereby filing a divorce lawsuit on August 17, 2012, which led to the Plaintiff’s submission of a maliciously unfavorable statement to the employee of the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had maintained a smooth marital life through mutual reconciliation, and thus, the Defendant’s refusal of the extension of the Plaintiff’s sojourn is unlawful.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. The permission for extension of the period of sojourn is an act of recommending a foreigner to grant a new period of sojourn in excess of the original period of sojourn, and constitutes an act of discretionary discretion. According to the provisions of Article 25 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 12 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Articles 28-4 and 31(1) of the "foreigners' Status of Sojourn", and Article 76(2)6 [Attachment 5-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the applicant submits documents about the permission for extension of the period of sojourn to the permitting authority.