체류기간연장등불허가처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of denying the change of status of stay and notifying departure to the Plaintiff on May 26, 2014 respectively is revoked.
2...
Details of the disposition
On August 28, 2011, the Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), entered the Republic of Korea with the status of sojourn for specific activities (E-7) and served as a cook at the place of business in the name of "C" operated by B.
On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for permission to extend the period of sojourn for a specific activity status.
At the time, the defendant was deemed to have failed to meet the requirements for employment of foreigners by the "C", which is the workplace of the plaintiff, and received a letter from B, the representative of the above workplace, to meet the requirements for employment of foreigners within six months, and thereafter extended the period of sojourn
On January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-permission to extend the period of stay against the Defendant. On the 24th of the same month, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s work place still fell short of the requirements for foreign employment, and thus, rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission to extend the period of stay on the ground that the Plaintiff did not legally work within
Accordingly, on February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the status of stay to the status of stay (D-10), and the Defendant changed the status of stay to the status of stay (D-10) upon the said application on the 19th of the same month.
On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a change of status of stay (E-7) to sojourn status as a specific activity (E-7), but the Defendant rejected the change of the Plaintiff’s status of stay on May 26, 2014 on the ground that the cooking qualification submitted by the Plaintiff was forged (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On the same day, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his departure from the Republic of Korea by June 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant departure order”).
[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 5, 11, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the disposition of this case and the order for departure are legitimate. The defendant of this case's disposition and the order for departure