체류기간연장등불허가처분취소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that Article 16(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on Overseas Koreans”) may apply where a foreign nationality Korean violated Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act by employing a foreigner who did not have “the status of stay eligible for employment” on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.
Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 16 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court determined that the instant disposition did not violate the principle of proportionality because it was excessively harsh compared to the Plaintiff’s misconduct, and thus, did not constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff received a notification disposition on the ground that he employed only foreigners who have sojourn status for visiting and working in a massage place in November 2009; (b) notified the content of the Immigration Control Act and promised to comply with the above Acts and subordinate statutes; and (c) the Plaintiff received a notification disposition for the same reason and did not pay the penalty at once on July 2012; and (d) received a summary order
Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the proportionality.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.