logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.09 2014누73625
체류자격변경허가거부처분취소청구의 소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the following 2.2. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

(a)as China in Part 7 of the Second Instance, the term “China” shall be read as “Korean Chinese Chinese nationals”;

B. The following are added to the third part of the 14th part “the instant refusal disposition is unlawful.”

Even if the Defendant provided an opportunity to present his opinion in the course of investigating an immigration offender against the Plaintiff A, it is practically difficult for the Plaintiff to fully express his or her position on the illegality of the instant refusal disposition in the course of investigating an immigration offender and permission for alteration of status of an immigration offender. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff granted an opportunity to present his or her opinion in the course of investigating an immigration offender to the Plaintiff A, thereby giving an opportunity to present his or her opinion on the instant refusal disposition. Moreover, the Plaintiff B did not have an opportunity to present his or her opinion on the instant refusal disposition since there was no investigation on the immigration offender

(c) by the following parts from (a) to (17) the advance notice of paragraph 4 of this title “(a)” has been given:

As to the assertion that “(a) the opportunity to present opinions has not been granted without a prior notice.”

According to Articles 21(1) and 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, an administrative agency shall notify the parties of the title of the disposition prior to rendering a disposition, and provide the parties with an opportunity to present their opinions. The disposition shall constitute “a disposition imposing obligations on the parties or restricting their rights and interests.”

arrow