beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiffs are both foreigners of the nationality of the Republic of four arms (hereinafter referred to as the "NEM"), and the plaintiffs A and B are simple married couple, and the plaintiffs C are the children of the above married couple.
(hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff A” and the Plaintiff B and C together with the Plaintiff “B” are referred to as “B.”
Plaintiff
A has been staying in the Republic of Korea as a sojourn status for a specific activity (E-7) and serving as a food cooking company in India, and the rest of the plaintiffs have been staying as a sojourn status for accompanying (F-3) who is the principal agent of the plaintiff A.
C. On March 19, 2017, the expiration date of each of the above respective respective periods of sojourn, the plaintiffs filed an application with the defendant for changing their status of sojourn to a corporate investment (D-8), and the rest of the plaintiffs filed an application for extension of their status of sojourn.
On March 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for corporate investment status under Article 12 [Attachment 1] subparag. 17(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “the Enforcement Decree of this case”). The Defendant, instead of “the notice of refusal to change the status of stay” in attached Form 43-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, instead of “the notice of refusal to change the status of stay”, Article 43-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Enforcement Rule, the Defendant prepared a written disposition against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for corporate investment status under Article 12 [Attachment 1] subparag. 17(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act. However, the Defendant is deemed to have rejected the change of the status of stay for the Plaintiff.
As to the remaining plaintiffs, the plaintiff A, who is the subject of the disposition, denied the extension of the period of accompanying stay on the ground of refusal to change the status of stay
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "each of the instant dispositions"). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul 1.