체류기간연장허가거부처분 등 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with short-term visits (C-3) sojourn status on short-term visits (C-3) on May 8, 2016, and received training in B University International Language Research Institute (Korean Language Education Institute) with the permission to change sojourn status as a general training (D-4) sojourn status on June 20, 2016.
B. Since then, the Plaintiff passed the master’s degree course in C University Social Welfare Department and applied for permission to change the status of stay to the Defendant on February 1, 2018, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the change of the Plaintiff’s status of stay on April 19, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on November 13, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant: (a) made the instant disposition on the ground that the money in the Plaintiff’s account of the balance certificate submitted by the Plaintiff while filing an application for the change of the status of stay was most deposited after the Plaintiff filed the application; and (b) the Plaintiff used the money in cash without depositing the money in the passbook; (c) it is only that the Plaintiff deposited cash in the custody of the balance certificate to be submitted while filing an application for the change of the said status of stay and paid money to keep the money in cash again after the issuance of the balance certificate.
Although the defendant does not necessarily have to keep the expenses of stay in the head of the Tong in order to obtain permission to change the status of stay, the defendant's refusal of the application for permission to change the status of stay was abuse of discretionary power and infringed the plaintiff's right to pursue happiness, right to learning, and right to move to residence.