2...

The Plaintiff, as a foreigner of Chinese nationality, has produced ASEAN between B and C of the Republic of Korea’s nationality. On July 23, 2008, after completing the marriage report with C on July 23, 2008, entered the Republic of Korea as the status of residence (F-2) on June 4, 2010, and obtained permission for changing the status of stay from the Defendant on November 19, 2012 as the status of marriage immigration (F-6).

On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce against C on December 27, 2013 with the Chuncheon District Court 2013Ddan3221, and on March 12, 2014, the said decision was finalized on April 1, 2014.

On January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6) to the Defendant. On January 19, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that “A lack of proof as to whether a regular contact was made with a child abroad,” was “A lack of requirement for the Plaintiff.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleading as to the instant disposition, including the Plaintiff’s living expenses, etc., is transferring a certain amount to C, who is the former spouse, and is frequently contacted with D.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was taken on a different premise, was unlawful as it was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, as it has a serious error in fact-finding.

Judgment

1. Articles 10 (1), 24 (1) and 25 of the Immigration Control Act shall require a foreigner to enter the Republic of Korea to obtain such status of sojourn as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and where a foreigner who stays in the Republic of Korea intends to engage in any activity falling under the status of sojourn different from that of his/her status of sojourn, the foreigner shall obtain prior permission to change his/her status of sojourn