beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 15, 2007, the Plaintiff married with a foreigner of Vietnam, who is a national of Korea, and entered Korea on July 13, 2007. 2) The Plaintiff gave birth to C-born D while married with B and the Republic of Korea.
3) After that, on February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff left Korea with his child D as of February 16, 2009. (B) The Plaintiff initially entered Korea and was granted the F-2-1 qualification as a spouse of the citizen under the Immigration Control Act (after the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201, the status of stay was changed to F-6-1).
2) However, upon reporting the withdrawal of the Plaintiff on February 27, 2009, the Plaintiff withdrawn the Plaintiff’s fidelity guarantee, and the period of stay expired on July 13, 2009. 3) The Plaintiff was under protective measures on October 12, 2011 while the Plaintiff was under illegal stay. However, on October 13, 201, the Plaintiff returned to Vietnam upon receiving a deportation order issued on October 13, 201, with no intent to live with the Plaintiff and wishing to depart from Vietnam.
4) After that, on April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff appointed an attorney and filed a divorce lawsuit against B on April 13, 2017. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff re-enters the Republic of Korea with the short-term visit (C-3-1) qualification (the expiration date of the stay period September 24, 2017). (c) On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the status of stay, the Defendant’s instant disposition, and the establishment of divorce conciliation (the establishment of divorce conciliation) with the Defendant to change the status of stay on August 7, 2017.
2. On August 9, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition denying the change to G-1-3 qualifications falling under “a person pending a lawsuit,” among other status of stay, on the grounds that an application for postponement of departure is possible due to the filing of a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff, and received an application for postponement of departure from the Plaintiff and received the application for postponement of departure from the Republic of Korea from the Plaintiff.