체류자격변경불허결정취소
The defendant's disposition of denying alteration of status of stay made on January 14, 2020 to the plaintiff shall be revoked.
Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff (B) entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay on a short-term visit (C-3) on August 18, 2013, and stayed until July 16, 2017 after changing his/her status of stay to the status of stay for visiting and moving (F-1) to the status of stay for the purpose of care for his/her children residing in the Republic of Korea on October 18, 2013. On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff (B) entered the Republic of Korea with his/her short-term visit (C-3) status of stay for the purpose of care for his/her children on May 25, 2018.
B. On June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a report of marriage with C(D) who is a national of the Republic of Korea, and filed an application for changing the Plaintiff’s status of stay to the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) with the Defendant on September 19, 2019.
C. On January 14, 2020, the Defendant issued a non-permission to change the status of stay pursuant to Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the income requirements for the issuance of visas for the purpose of marriage stay.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2, 9 and Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Considering that C, the Plaintiff’s spouse of the Plaintiff, satisfies the income requirements for the issuance of visas for the purpose of marriage and marriage, as well as that the Plaintiff was actually living together as C and C for more than one year, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is an abuse of discretionary authority.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. Determination 1A) Since permission for alteration of status of sojourn has the nature of a permanent disposition that grants the applicant the right to engage in activities that are different from the original status of sojourn, the permitting authority has the discretion to decide whether to grant permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn, impact on public interest, etc. even if the applicant satisfied the requirements prescribed in the relevant statutes.
However, it is judged when exercising such discretion.