The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

A. On February 22, 2018, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years suspended execution, on the ground that he/she was guilty of committing a crime in violation of the Immigration Control Act under the former spouse B’s false invitation, and that “the Plaintiff participated in a crime in violation of the Immigration Control Act following the former spouse B’s false invitation.”

Upon the final judgment on August 17, 2018, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea upon obtaining a departure order on October 4, 2018.

B. On the other hand, on August 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with C, who is a national of the Republic of Korea, and on January 27, 2019, filed an application for the issuance of a visa for the status of stay of a resident (F-6) to the Defendant on the ground that he/she is “spouse who is a national of the Republic of Korea” on the grounds that he/she is “C’s spouse who is a national of the Republic of Korea

(c)

On January 27, 2020, the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of a visa for the status of stay of a resident (F-6) to the Defendant again for the same reason.

On March 12, 2020, the Defendant notified the purport to refuse to issue a visa (hereinafter “instant notification”). (In the absence of dispute on grounds of recognition), the Plaintiff, a foreigner, has no legal interest in seeking revocation of the refusal of the visa, and the issue of the visa is an act in the Republic of Korea as a sovereign state, and thus, the Plaintiff, a foreigner, is not entitled to legal and sound rights under the law requiring the issuance of the visa to the Republic of Korea.

2) The instant lawsuit is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s eligibility and the subject-matter, and is infinite legal effect.

(1) In full view of Article 7(1) and Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act, foreigners also have the right to apply for the administrative issuance of visas.

The Plaintiff established a trade company from February 2008, when he first visited the Republic of Korea as the applicant for the issuance of the interest visa directly to the other party to the instant disposition.