2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff, a Vietnam national, entered the Republic of Korea with Nonparty 1 who is a national of the Republic of Korea, after completing the marriage report, and entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6) on December 4, 2015.

B. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against Nonparty 1 with the Incheon Family Court (2016ddan107561, hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit”). On January 25, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 are divorced; Nonparty 1 paid the Plaintiff the amount of consolation money of KRW 1 million per annum from October 21, 2016 to January 25, 2017; and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

C. On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the period of stay with the status of stay of a married terminated person [attached Table 1] under Article 12 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (F-6(c)]. However, on June 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny the extension of the period of stay against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the spouse cannot find any cause prior to his/her spouse, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, after being pregnant on January 2016 after the marriage with the non-party 1, was born of a fetus on February 26, 2016 due to the unfair treatment of the non-party 1, the plaintiff left home on July 13, 2016, and the non-party 1 did not look at the plaintiff after the plaintiff was slaughtered. The plaintiff and the non-party 1 were divorced due to the reasons attributable to the non-party 1.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who is unable to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship due to reasons not attributable to himself,” the Defendant’s act of taking the instant disposition on a different premise is based on the mistake of facts and is in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that “A foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea shall have such status of stay as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 25 of the same Act provides that “A foreigner who intends to continue to stay in excess of his/her period of stay shall obtain permission for extension of the period of stay from the Minister of Justice before the period of stay expires, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Accordingly, Article 12 and [Attachment 1] 28-4.c. of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “A foreigner who is married to his/her spouse shall obtain permission for extension of the period of stay from the Minister of Justice before the period of stay expires.” Article 10(1) of the same Act provides that “A person recognized by the Minister of Justice is one of the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) among the status of stay for foreigners under Article 10(

In addition to the above-mentioned provision's form, language, etc., the permission period for extension of sojourn has the nature of a sort of permanent right disposition that grants the applicant the right to continue to stay in excess of the original period of sojourn. Thus, the permission period for extension of sojourn is a discretionary act that the permission-granting authority determines whether to grant permission in consideration of the applicant's eligibility, purpose of sojourn, influence on public interest, etc

Therefore, even if a foreigner who was granted status of stay as a spouse of Korean nationals under the Immigration Control Act (F-6) was unable to maintain a matrimonial relationship with Korean nationals due to reasons such as divorce, in order to obtain permission for extension of the period of stay on the grounds that the reasons for not maintaining such marital relationship fall under a cause not attributable to him/her, it should be recognized that the Korean citizens maintained a normal marital relationship and the foreigner was unable to maintain a normal marital relationship due to reasons not attributable to himself/herself. Furthermore, considering the fact that there is no reason attributable to a dissolution of marriage, the fact that there is no reason attributable to the foreigner is a requirement for administrative agencies to grant the status of stay to the married victim or extend the period of stay for the said status of stay, and the evidence of the causes attributable to the foreigner is located within the area of the control of the foreigner, the foreigner’

2) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is entirely responsible for the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, and is not responsible for the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, that there is no error of misconception of the facts to the Defendant. The instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the allegation of this case is lawful, is without merit.

A) In the instant divorce lawsuit, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 were divorced from the Plaintiff on February 26, 2016 and ordered Nonparty 1 to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff on or around July 13, 2016 on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s marital relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 appears to have been no longer irrecoverable due to Nonparty 1’s primary causes attributable to the Plaintiff, and the judgment became final to order Nonparty 1 to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff on or around February 26, 2016, but the above judgment determined that Nonparty 1 not “the primary causes attributable to Nonparty 1,” but “the cause attributable to Nonparty 1,” and the degree of liability for the marriage and the amount of consolation money are only 10 million won in consideration of the circumstances and the degree of liability for the marriage.”

B) At the time of the Defendant’s fact-finding survey, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “only the convenience store at which the time of retirement is late, would have come to go to the house on July 13, 2016.” Nonparty 1, “I would go to go to the house on his own, and directly go to the house on his own, and later, her mother and her right in her surrounding area, withdrawn the Plaintiff’s fidelity guarantee on July 15, 2016, and submitted to the court a document recognizing her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son her son’s son.”

C) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff submitted a diagnosis issued by Nonparty 3 (Evidence 3-1, 2-1, 2) as evidence, that “the Plaintiff was under the influence of the operation of the Silver, and was under the influence of the Silver. Although the intention at the time prescribed a doctor to withdraw conditions, the husband and the mother were to return to the Plaintiff a drug later and to the convenience store, and the Plaintiff was in very critical situation due to the lack of transportation expenses, but they returned to the hospital, even though they were in the absence of convenience, they came back to the convenience store, and they were under the influence of the mother and her husband at the latest at the convenience store.” The Plaintiff appears to have been under the influence of Nonparty 2, who was under the influence of Nonparty 1, 201, and was under the influence of Nonparty 2, who was under the influence of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who was under the influence of the Silver Hospital, and was under the influence of Nonparty 1, 2016 at the time of birth, the Plaintiff appears to have been under the influence of 2.

D) On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit on July 13, 2016, which took place with Nonparty 1 and 7 months from the Republic of Korea’s entry into the Republic of Korea. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit on the 28th of the same month. The Plaintiff stated in this court that “I want to return to the family, but I did not want to get back to the family, and I did not comply with the husband’s promise to get out of the family, and brought an action for divorce too unfair without complying with the husband’s promise to get out of the family.” However, the Plaintiff did not respond to the question whether “The reason why both countries have brought a lawsuit without divorce or whether the Plaintiff has made any effort to recover the relationship with the husband after leaving the family” or not. The Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 did not respond to the conflict with Nonparty 1’s workplace due to the Plaintiff’s conflict between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1’s labor.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-young