(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.04.10 2018구합52448

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.04.10 2018구합52448

체류기간연장등불허가처분취소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On February 22, 2018, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (B-2) of the Republic of Egypt and applied for the alteration of the status of stay as a corporate investment (D-8) to the Defendant on March 20, 2018.

B. On April 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) stated the Plaintiff in attached Form 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 927, May 15, 2018); (b) stated the grounds for refusal of a decision on the extension of stay period, etc. as “qualified expenses, etc.”; and (c) served a document stating the following details on the Plaintiff.

Since it has been decided not to permit the extension of the period of stay, etc. for which you have applied for pursuant to Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, he/she shall notify him/her of

YC 33 of the 33th public notice of the Act on the Establishment of Yubu area 1 1, 1, 2-5, and the purport of the entire pleadings by the following: (a) there is no dispute over the fact that the de Parture deline deline 1, 2-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the Republic of Korea.

2. We examine ex officio whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff sought revocation of the decision not to grant extension of sojourn period pursuant to the title of the notification in this case, but it is evident that the contents of the lawsuit in this case seek revocation of the decision not to grant extension of sojourn period requested by the plaintiff.

However, the notification of this case only states that the extension of sojourn period is not permitted to the plaintiff, and it does not appear that the alteration of sojourn status is not permitted. Thus, the notification of this case does not constitute the "decision not to permit the alteration of sojourn status" in response to the plaintiff's application for alteration of sojourn status.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is subject to the revocation of the non-permission of change of status of stay.

참조조문

-출입국관리법 시행규칙

-출입국관리법 시행령 제33조

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2019.02.12 2018구단53439

-서울행정법원 2018.08.22 2017구단33384 (1)

-서울행정법원 2019.01.23 2018구단76128

-서울행정법원 2018.09.04 2018구단56834

-서울행정법원 2018.08.13 2017구단36703