logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.18 2018누78253
체류기간연장등불허결정취소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s decision on May 23, 2018, which rejected the Plaintiff’s extension of sojourn period, etc.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) visa of B students, and the Plaintiff’s female female was married to a national of the Republic of Korea in 2007, and acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea in 2014. On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the qualification of a visiting movement (F-1) for the fostering of Makdong, a married female female.

B. However, on May 23, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for change of status of stay on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the basic requirements of the person eligible to obtain the qualification for stay (F-1) for raising immigrants by marriage (hereinafter “ma-1”), and that it failed to prove the need to stay in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on May 31, 2018, but was dismissed on August 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since it is impossible to conduct economic activities because the husband of the Plaintiff’s female her husband (hereinafter “her husband”) suffered from various diseases, it is necessary for the Plaintiff’s female her husband (hereinafter “her mother”) to conduct economic activities.

due to various diseases, the parents of each department are in a situation where it is impossible to rear the plaintiff due to the establishment of a farmer's house in the city.

Although the Plaintiff’s mother died and the father’s disease can only take care of the Plaintiff’s rearing, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is male is an abuse of discretion against the principle of equality.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Article 10 of the Immigration Control Act provides that a foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea shall have a general stay status or permanent residency status, and Article 24(1) provides that a foreigner who stays in the Republic of Korea shall have a status of stay different from that

arrow