logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.30 2016구단51570
출국명령처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a Korean female of Chinese nationality, was issued on August 19, 2001 and November 22, 2002, and entered the Republic of Korea on November 21, 2007, after having attempted to enter the Republic of Korea on two occasions on August 19, 2001 and being discovered and forced to leave the Republic of Korea, making it difficult to enter the Republic of Korea as his/her personal information, and entered the Republic of Korea on November 21, 2007.

B. On March 15, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for permission for naturalization under the name of the Defendant, but around February 2012, the Plaintiff was rendered non-permission on the ground that it is difficult to deem that he/she had maintained a genuine living together with C. Around March 2013, he/she was married with D, who was the Plaintiff’s principal name on February 23, 2015 when he/she stayed illegally without filing an application for extension of sojourn period after consultation with C. A around March 2013.

C. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s office to obtain a visa for residence in a name other than the past name, and submitted an application for recognition of the issuance of the visa to the Plaintiff’s principal name. Accordingly, the Defendant received the application for sojourn on the ground that the visa issuance certificate system for marriage stay was abolished.

On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for October, 2010 on the ground of the crime that: (a) the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a name passport under B’s name in the obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means; and (b) the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties, such as entry and departure through fraudulent means with the permission of extension of the period

E. On November 30, 2016, the Defendant issued an order for departure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 68(1)1, 46(1)1, 46(1)3, 11(1)3, 11(1)4, and 7(1) of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition]

arrow