logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.18 2016구단18142
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 September 5, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis on September 5, 201, and changed the status of stay several times on November 4, 2011, and applied for the change of status of sojourn to the Defendant for a change of status of general training (D-4) sojourn status on March 17, 2016 (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On July 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition denying the change of status of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the proof of expenses incurred in staying in the Republic of Korea by his/her spouse and his/her child is unclear, the purpose of the Korean language training” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. At the time of the instant application, the Plaintiff’s assertion had the status of stay in accordance with the general training (D-4) sojourn standards, and there was no need to spread the Korean language before, but after the Plaintiff’s wife’s application for Korean nationality, there was a need to live in the Republic of Korea for family members, making it difficult for the Plaintiff to learn Korean language, and open Korean language books in the Korean Language Institute from March 20, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s sojourn expenses during the period of stay in the Republic of Korea are constantly receiving from Mongolia.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

B. 1) In light of Article 10(1) and Article 24 of the Immigration Control Act, Articles 12 and 30 [Attachment 1.3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, considering that the upper limit of the scope of activities or the period of stay that a foreigner can carry out in the Republic of Korea depending on the form, language, and status of stay, etc., the change of status of stay is subject to the authority to grant the applicant the authority to engage in activities falling under the status of sojourn that are different from the original status of sojourn.

arrow