2017Gudan3215 Revocation of Disposition of Non-permission for extension of sojourn period, etc.

1. A;

2. B

Since the Plaintiffs are minors, the legal representative C/MoD

Head of Seoul Immigration Office

June 27, 2017

July 11, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of rejection of each extension of sojourn period, etc. against the plaintiffs on January 9, 2017 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are foreigners of Mongolian nationality, and C and D’s children.

B. The Plaintiff’s father C entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status and changed the status of stay into the qualification for general training (D-4) on March 7, 2016, and applied for extension of the period of stay to the Defendant. However, on October 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to allow extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”) on the ground that “the purpose and financial capacity of stay are unclear” was not clear. The Plaintiffs’ mother D entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status and changed the status of stay into the Republic of Korea as a accompanying (F-3) qualification on April 4, 2016, and applied for extension of the period of stay to the Defendant. However, on October 4, 2016, the Defendant rejected the application from the Defendant for extension of the period of stay for the reason that the period of stay was denied.

C. On October 17, 2016, C and D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the above disposition (2016Gudan62774) with this court. However, on June 8, 2017, C and D filed an appeal on June 26, 2017, upon having rendered a dismissal judgment.

D. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis, and applied for permission to extend sojourn period for departure from the Republic of Korea on December 12, 2016, but the Defendant rejected the said application on the ground that “the Plaintiffs have no infertility” was “the instant disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

If the aged Plaintiffs were to leave the Republic of Mongolia, they will be hedging with their parents, and there is no person who cares for the Plaintiffs in Mongolia. In particular, Plaintiff B entered the Republic of Korea, and received medical treatment due to the Madroooooooooty. Therefore, it is sufficiently possible to extend the stay or the postponement of departure from the Republic of Korea at a humanitarian level until the existence or absence of the parent’s stay is determined. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Determination

1) Articles 10(1), 24(1), and 25 of the Immigration Control Act provide that a foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea shall obtain the status of sojourn prescribed by Presidential Decree; a foreigner who intends to stay in the Republic of Korea intends to engage in an activity that differs from his/her status of sojourn shall obtain the permission to change the status of sojourn from the Minister of Justice in advance; and that a foreigner shall obtain the permission to extend the period of sojourn from the Minister of Justice before the period of sojourn expires, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if the foreigner intends to continue his/her stay in excess of the period of sojourn. Thus, the foreigner may stay only within the scope of his/her status of sojourn recognized at the time of initial entry and the period of sojourn; if the foreigner needs to continue his

In addition, the immigration control administration is a state administrative action aimed at promoting the national interest and safety by properly controlling and coordinating the entry and departure of foreigners in Korea and foreigners. In particular, matters concerning the stay of foreigners in Korea are essential to function as a sovereign state. In light of the purpose and purport of the immigration control administration and the forms, structure, and language of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as seen above, permission for the extension of the stay period of foreigners has the nature of a kind of permanent authority that grants the applicant the right to stay in the Republic of Korea during the period exceeding the initial period of sojourn, and the permitting authority has a broad discretion to determine whether to grant the permission, taking into account the applicant’s eligibility, the purpose of the stay, the impact of the public interest, etc.

2) Further to the facts recognized earlier and the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 7 (including additional numbers) and the following circumstances acknowledged, namely, the Plaintiffs’ parents’ entry into the Republic of Korea around December 2015, before entering the Republic of Korea on September 3, 2016, appears to have been well in Mongolia’s protection. If so, even if the Plaintiffs return to Mongolia, it appears that the Plaintiffs would be able to well in advance under the protection of Mongolia. While Plaintiff B was hospitalized into the Republic of Korea from September 17, 2016 to September 24, 2016, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiffs were unable to recover their health at the time of the instant disposition due to a reasonable interval of time from the date of the aforementioned release to the date of the instant disposition, the Plaintiffs’ request for postponement of departure from the Republic of Korea to the Defendant for a short-term stay period of at least 100 days (the Plaintiffs’ request for postponement of departure from the Republic of Korea to January 23, 2017).

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Song Byung-hun