logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.02.05 2015구단55922
체류기간연장등불허가처분취소
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 December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered Korea on the same day with a visa issued on December 5, 2013, as the status of stay (E-7), work place B, and the expiration date of the period of stay, which entered Korea on December 5, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff worked in B from the entry into the Republic of Korea to February 24, 2014, but thereafter, the Plaintiff left the workplace and did not work any longer at the said workplace.

On August 7, 2014, the head of the Seoul Immigration Office revoked ex officio the issuance of visa to the plaintiff under Article 89 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 94 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

C. On the other hand, on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Sung-nam Branch of the Ministry of Employment and Labor that did not receive wages of KRW 2,541,000 against the said C, but was paid approximately KRW 1,550,000 from C on November 18, 2014, and subsequently withdrawn the petition. Accordingly, on December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the said case was closed by the Sung-nam Branch of the Ministry of Employment and Labor on November 18, 2014.

After that, on December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of status of stay with the Defendant for change of status of stay (D-10). However, on May 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to permit change of status of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the requirements for change of status of stay for job-seeking (D-10) were not satisfied, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to meet the requirements for change of status of stay.

E. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant endeavored to identify the location of the Plaintiff by sending text messages to visit the Defendant’s office as the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s application. However, as the Plaintiff’s location is still impossible, the Defendant is missing on June 5, 2015.

arrow