(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.11.05 2020누39992

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) 서울고등법원 2020.11.05 2020누39992

체류기간연장등불허처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the newly raised argument to this court when it comes to this case, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on addition

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Ministry of Justice’s guidance manual for foreigner stay issued by the Ministry of Justice’s Immigration Policy Headquarters may be deemed an administrative rule as an internal guidelines for business affairs or business affairs. According to this, a person who is receiving treatment in a legacy may be permitted to permit the extension of the period of stay. The Defendant has granted the extension of the period of stay to the Plaintiff who is receiving treatment in a legacy for the long time, and thus, may be placed under self-detained in accordance with administrative practices. However, even though the Plaintiff applied for extension of the period of stay after receiving a decision to extend the period of stay by the head of the regional headquarters of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation for the same reason, the Defendant’s refusal of extension of the period of stay is an illegal disposition that violates the principle of equality or the principle of protection of trust and trust, and thus, the Defendant is revoked. 2) The Korea Labor Welfare Corporation’s extension of the period of stay to the Plaintiff on July 31, 201, which is the most appropriate means for the Plaintiff to maintain domestic order and manage the period of stay.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition of this case against the Plaintiff should be revoked in violation of the principle of proportionality.

B. As to the assertion that the judgment is contrary to the principle of equality or the principle of protection of trust.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-광주고등법원(전주) 2020.09.23 2019누2416

-대법원 2009. 12. 24. 선고 2009두7967 판결

-대구지방법원 2018.09.14 2018구단840

-부산고등법원 2018. 10. 17. 선고 2018누21255 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.10.28 2016누42199