logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.18 2016구단11721
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 February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) status on a short-term basis, and on March 25, 2016, filed an application for permission to change the status of stay to the Defendant for a general training (D-4) status (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On April 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff to deny the change of the status of stay on the ground of “insufficient documents, etc. for financial input” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion rejected the plaintiff's application of this case on the ground that the plaintiff withdrawn money from the bank account even though the plaintiff sufficiently explained about the expenses of sojourn during the period of stay in the Republic of Korea at the time of the application of this case. The disposition of this case is an abuse of discretion and is illegal.

B. Determination 1) Taking into account the following circumstances, in light of the form and language of the Immigration Control Act, Articles 10(1) and 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, Articles 12 and 30 [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, and the fact that the upper limit of the scope of activities or the period of sojourn that a foreigner can carry out in the Republic of Korea depending on the status of sojourn, etc., the permission to change the status of sojourn has discretion to decide whether to grant permission by the authority to the permitting authority, taking into account the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn, impact on the public interest, etc. (2) in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the health stand, the evidence revealed in the instant case, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff deposited 6,003,00 won with his own account on March 25, 2016, and deposited 6,003,00 won from agricultural cooperatives.

arrow