2015Guhap50379 Revocation of revocation of permission for extension of sojourn period, etc.

Male O (S Long 0000)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The head of Incheon Immigration Office

The second title of the litigation performer;

July 23, 2015

September 10, 2015

1. On January 28, 2015, the Defendant’s rejection decision on January 28, 2015, such as extension of sojourn period, etc. against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff, a national of the People’s Republic of China, filed a marriage report with ○,00 nationality of the Republic of Korea, and obtained permission for stay status of marriage immigration (F-6) on December 11, 2010, and resided in the Republic of Korea on several occasions after obtaining permission for stay status of marriage immigration (F-6).

B. The Plaintiff applied for permission to extend the sojourn period on October 20, 2014, but the Defendant, on January 28, 2015, rejected the application for “other reasons, such as lack of authenticity of marriage,” and notified the Plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea by February 11, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is running a marital life on the basis of the true intention with ○○○○ and the true intention. Therefore, the instant disposition was made by mistake of fact, and is illegal as it deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) judgment;

1) Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that "A foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea shall have the status of stay prescribed by Presidential Decree", and Article 25 of the same Act provides that "a foreigner who intends to continue to stay in excess of the period of stay shall obtain permission for extension of the period of stay from the Minister of Justice before the period of stay expires, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Accordingly, Article 12 and [Attachment 1] 28-4. A marriage immigration (F-6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the spouse of a national" among the requirements for the status of stay of a foreigner under Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

According to the above provisions, where an applicant applies for the extension of the period of sojourn to a person who is a spouse of a citizen with the right to permission for the extension of the period of sojourn, the permitting authority may investigate whether the applicant is the spouse of the true citizen, and determine whether to grant the extension of the period of sojourn in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, the purpose of his/her stay, the impact on the public interest, etc.

Meanwhile, in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition by asserting the illegality of the administrative disposition, the administrative agency has the burden of proving the legitimacy of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu515, Jan. 22, 1985). The court’s judicial review of an administrative agency’s discretionary act is to examine only whether the pertinent act is a deviation or abuse of discretion as it is conducted based on mistake of facts, violation of the principle of proportionality and equality, violation of the purpose of the pertinent act or the wrongful motive, etc. However, in a case where the court’s review results are deemed to be based on misunderstanding of facts, etc., it is unlawful as it deviates or abused from discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du8589, Jul. 27, 2001).

2) As to the instant case, the following facts are comprehensively taken into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 9, evidence Nos. 10-1 through 4, 11, 12, 13-1, 2, 14-1 through 10, 15, 16-1 through 4, 17, 18-1, 2, 20, 21-1, 2, 22-1, 22-1, 22-2, 1, and 1 of evidence Nos. 21-1, 22-1, 22-2, and 1 of evidence Nos. 1, and the witness’s testimony and arguments, according to the following facts:

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the instant disposition on a different premise is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power by misunderstanding the fact of the authenticity of marriage between the Plaintiff and YOO.

① From March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was registered as an insured person in ○○ Medical Insurance, and benefits from medical insurance. Medical insurance premiums are also paid by ○○○.

② In addition, in the event of death in the Hancheon Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., the beneficiary is a legal heir, i.e., the plaintiff, and ○○○ has also subscribed to a comprehensive insurance with the insured and the beneficiary, and all of the premiums are borne by ○○○.

③ At 00, the Plaintiff used a large number of buses around 000-0 U.S. O-dong (O-dong 00,000), which are currently residential areas. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff sought ○○○○○○○○○○ Department located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, where the Plaintiff had a very fluorous deficit.

④ The Plaintiff, along with the cheon○○○, was playing on the seaside or valley, was able to view the fluorial fluor and female fluorial fluor, and was fluor of 00,000, by attending the fluorial fluoral fluor.

5) The 00 puts money by way of remitting it to the Plaintiff’s account, and intended to donate to the Plaintiff, such as flachising, flachis, and so on.

⑥ 천○○은 2012. 10. 원고의 아들 왕★★을 양자로 입양하고, 왕★★에게 휴대폰을 이용하게 해주었으며, 휴대폰 이용료도 천OO이 납부하였다.

(No. 2) The No. 1300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment of the presiding judge;

Prosecutor General-Type

Judges Hong Sung-gi