본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.21 2017구단62337

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.


Details of the disposition

The plaintiffs are foreigners of Mongolian nationality.


A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”) entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on February 12, 2017 and February 13, 2017, respectively.

On April 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs were the Defendant, and Plaintiff A was the Plaintiff’s qualification for general training (D-4-3), and Plaintiff B filed an application for change of the status of stay (F-1) in the capacity of visiting Dong (F-1).

On May 23, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-permission ruling on the extension of the period of stay, etc. to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The grounds for non-permission against the Plaintiffs A are as follows: “In short of the financial capacity of a guardian and other reasons such as illegal stay, etc.,” and the grounds for non-permission against the Plaintiff B are as follows: “Non-permission ruling on the qualification of a foreign student who is the primary qualification, such as non-permission of qualification, lack of financial capacity, uncertainty of family relations, and unsound status of stay in the past.”

[Ground of recognition] The facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including identification numbers), the whole purport of the present disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the guardian of plaintiff A's assertion satisfies the financial ability requested by the defendant, and the father of the plaintiff A is granted the status of stay as other (G-1) upon application for refugee status.

In addition, the status of general training status (D-4-3) applied by the plaintiff A can be issued only when the plaintiff is a guardian regardless of the parent's stay in the Republic of Korea.

Furthermore, the plaintiff A is entering an elementary school and returning Korean friendships and adapts to the Korean environment.

Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground of the Plaintiff A’s sojourn power is an illegal disposition that misleads the facts or abused discretion.


The plaintiff B's assertion is clear that the plaintiff A's friendship group is well-grounded and sufficient money to stay in Korea.