logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.16 2014누42782
체류기간연장등불허가처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's marriage and the defendant's sojourn status 1) are women of the People's Republic of China's nationality who reported marriage with B (GG) who are nationals of the Republic of Korea on December 27, 2005, and on June 18, 2006, the defendant entered the Republic of Korea on June 18, 2006. Article 10 (1) of the Immigration Control Act of June 18, 2006, Article 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 of Nov. 1, 2011) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 of Nov. 1, 201) (F-2). According to the current Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, according to Article 12 [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 of Nov. 1, 2011).

B. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was denied the Defendant’s extension of sojourn period, filed an application for extension of sojourn period on April 9, 2013, and the Defendant’s employees in charge, on July 1, 2013

3. After conducting a fact-finding survey, the Plaintiff and B submitted a report on the investigation of current status as follows, and reported their opinions that the Plaintiff and B cannot be deemed to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship. The Plaintiff is serving in the neighboring Emaz establishment while residing in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul on June 3, 2012 in Eunpyeong-guD.

B is residing in the F of the Vindication-gun and work in the construction site for the field of the construction of the Heungjin-gun.

- The plaintiff was living together with B around 2006 for a period of two months, and he stated that he did not receive the relatives of B.

- In the past 3 to 4 years, there is no trace that the Plaintiff and B were given living expenses or shared economic activities.

- The monetary content is one case in January, 2013, and 0 cases in February.

arrow