1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Details of the disposition

Plaintiff

A A A, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), who is a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), obtained a visa for specific activities (E-7) on the basis of the certificate of Chinese cook (hereinafter referred to as "certificate of this case") and entered the Republic of Korea on August

Plaintiff

On February 16, 2013, Plaintiff B, a spouse of A, obtained a visa to be accompanied (F-3) by the invitation of Plaintiff A, who has sojourn status for specific activities (E-7) as Chinese national, and entered the Republic of Korea.

On August 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant qualification certificate was forged; and (b) revoked the issuance of a visa for the Plaintiff on the ground that the said specific activity (E-7) visa was falsely issued; and (c) revoked the visa for the Plaintiff B on the ground that there was a serious reason for the Plaintiff’s revocation of the said specific activity (E-7) visa issued in falsity, thereby making it impossible to maintain the visa any more.

On August 24, 2017, the Defendant issued an order for departure respectively on the ground that the Plaintiff was a foreigner who entered the visa under a specific activity (E-7) for which a false application was filed with respect to the Plaintiff A, on the ground that the issuance of the visa was revoked as above.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] A] without dispute, entry of Gap’s Nos. 1, 4 through 6, 8, 9, Eul’s evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case, the plaintiffs’ assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case is that the plaintiff passed a national vocational skill examination conducted by the Labor Security Department of China around April 2007 and was issued regularly, and it is not forged. Thus, the disposition in this case is unlawful since there is no ground for disposition.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

According to Article 33(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, the Plaintiffs did not issue a notification of non-permission of change of status of stay to the Plaintiff when rendering the instant disposition to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition is procedural.