beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. ① On February 25, 200, Plaintiff A entered the Republic of Korea as a visa exemption (B-1) and departs from the Republic of Korea after obtaining permission to change the status of stay as an enterprise investment (D-8). On August 31, 2001, Plaintiff A stays in the Republic of Korea after re-entry into the Republic of Korea as an enterprise investment (D-8) qualification. ② Plaintiff E enters the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) visa on August 27, 2007 and stays in the Republic of Korea upon obtaining permission to change the status of stay as an enterprise investment (D-8) on October 29, 2007. ③ Plaintiff A enters the Republic of Korea as a qualification for visa exemption (B-1) on January 19, 2001 and stays in the Republic of Korea with obtaining permission to change the status of stay as an enterprise investment (D-8) on April 17, 2001.
B. On March 20, 200, Plaintiff A invested 64,486 US dollars (the equivalent of 75 million US dollars) and established a foreign-invested enterprise called J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant enterprise”). Plaintiff E, around 2007, has 56,965 US dollars (the equivalent of 50 million US dollars) and Plaintiff I, around 2003, invested in each of the instant enterprises, shall serve as the representative director of the instant enterprise after having invested 43,986 US dollars (the equivalent of 50 million US dollars) in each of the instant enterprises.
C. Plaintiff B, C, and D are the spouse and children of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff F, G, and H are the spouse and children of Plaintiff E, and they are staying in the Republic of Korea as accompanying status (F-3) for reasons that they fall under the spouse and unmarried minor of the company-investment (D-8) holder.
Defendant, Plaintiff A, B, C, and H applied for the extension of the period of stay as the same qualification on April 10, 2013; Plaintiff E, F, G, and H on April 12, 2013; and Plaintiff I on April 3, 2013. However, the Defendant did not have the eligibility for corporate investment (D-8) because Plaintiff A, E, and I (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A, etc.”) cannot be deemed to have operated a normal business due to convenience because it is difficult to view that Plaintiff A, E, and I (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) were engaged in a normal business. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ respective periods of stay on May 4, 2013, each of the above respective periods of sojourn of the Plaintiffs.