(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.23 2018구단20187

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.23 2018구단20187

체류기간 연장허가 거부처분 취소

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. The Plaintiff, a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) on January 17, 2010, but the status of stay was changed to a general training (D-4) on April 19, 2010, and the status of stay was changed to a study abroad (D-2) on March 3, 2014.

After that, the Plaintiff, upon obtaining permission for extension of sojourn period for study (D-2) sojourn status on two occasions, stayed in the Republic of Korea. On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff again filed an application for extension of sojourn period for the above sojourn status (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. However, on August 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the parents in the unlawful stay have raised the living cost, failed to meet the financial capacity, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 11, 2017, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 18, 2018.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is sufficient to have the financial ability since the Plaintiff’s sojourn costs are procured from the Plaintiff’s mother or her husband. ② The instant disposition is made on the ground that the Plaintiff’s parent is an illegal stay in the Republic of Korea, and thus, violates Article 13(3) of the Constitution that prohibits the annual coordinate. ③ According to the Defendant’s “Guidelines for the Issuance of Visas and the Management of Sojourns for Foreign Students,” the Defendant’s “Guidelines for the Issuance of Visas and the Management of Stays” provides that the financial ability may be omitted in the examination of the extension of the period of stay. However, the Defendant’s submission of evidentiary documents, unlike other foreign students, to assess the financial ability of the

참조조문

-대한민국헌법 제11조

-대한민국헌법 제13조 제3항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.08.09 2017구단7201

-수원지방법원 2018.03.30 2017구단9672

-수원지방법원 2017.05.26 2017구단6932

-수원지방법원 2019.02.08 2018구단3558

-서울행정법원 2019.01.23 2018구단23230