Rulings on marriage, marriage-migrant visas, spouse-of-national status and denial of paternity · 15 cases
This is an AI summary of the points published by the court, put in plain language. Always check the original for the exact content and conclusion of the ruling. It is not legal advice and cannot be applied as-is to other cases.
Three representative rulings
Stay extension denial unlawful: Korean spouse mainly caused marriage breakdown — The normal marital relationship had ended, so the requirements for the residence status for spouses of Korean nationals were not met. Still, the Korean spouse was mainly responsible for the breakdown, so the court found the refusal to extend the stay unlawful.
A lawsuit was filed over whether the refusal to extend the period of stay was unlawful. The issue was that the marital relationship had not continued normally. The point in dispute was whether the person falls under the residence status for persons whose marriage has broken down (F-6-3).
What did the court decide?
The court found that the normal marital relationship had ended, so the requirements for the status of spouse of a Korean national (F-6-1) were not met. However, because the Korean spouse was mainly responsible for the breakdown of the marriage, the court found that the person falls under the residence status for persons whose marriage has broken down (F-6-3). The court held that whether the marriage broke down to the point of a legal divorce is unrelated to the requirements for this status. It judged the refusal to extend the stay, made on a different premise, to be unlawful.
A Vietnamese national applied to the Consul General of a Republic of Korea consulate general for a visa under the marriage immigration residence status, on the ground of being the spouse of a Korean citizen. The Consul General issued a decision refusing it. The spouse, a Korean citizen, then filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found that a decision refusing a visa to a foreign national is an enforcement of law on a specific matter and an exercise of public authority, and that the person who filed the suit has a legal interest in seeking its cancellation. It therefore rejected all of the preliminary objections raised by the authority that made the decision and ruled on the merits. However, it found no deviation from or abuse of discretion, and dismissed the claim.
An application for a visa under the marriage migration residence status was refused. The reasons given included that the inviting person lacked sufficient financial capacity. A lawsuit was filed against this decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found lawful the decision refusing to issue a marriage migration visa on grounds including that the inviting person lacked sufficient financial capacity.
The Ministry of Justice's residence management guideline contains a provision limiting eligibility for a change to visiting-cohabitation (F-1) status, for marriage migrants' family members other than parents, to women. A lawsuit was filed concerning this guideline.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the guideline's restriction of eligibility for a change to visiting-cohabitation (F-1) status to women cannot be considered reasonable.
A Vietnamese man entered Korea on a short-term visit visa, invited by the husband of his younger sister, who was staying under a marriage migrant status. He then applied to change to visit and cohabitation residence status, saying he would help care for her children. The authority refused because he is the marriage migrant's older brother and therefore not a female blood relative within the 4th degree of kinship. He then asked the court to cancel that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court held that visit and cohabitation residence status is limited to 1 female blood relative aged 18 or older, within the 4th degree of kinship, of the marriage migrant. The younger sister also has an older sister staying in Korea and another older sister living in Vietnam. The court found it hard to say that the man had actually helped with her childbirth or child care. It therefore found that he did not meet the requirements for the change and dismissed the claim.
The applicant, formerly a foreign national, obtained simplified naturalization permission after marrying a Korean national. The applicant was in a bigamous relationship, concealed it to obtain the permission, and was criminally punished for obstructing a public official's lawful performance of duties by deceit. The agency that issued the disposition revoked the permission on the ground that it was obtained by false or improper means. The applicant sued for cancellation, arguing there was no ground for the disposition and that the agency exceeded or abused its discretion.
What did the court decide?
The court held that monogamy is a major part of the legal order of the Republic of Korea and that bigamy seriously violates it. It found it objectively presumable that the agency would not have granted simplified naturalization permission had it known of the bigamy. The court found that the applicant's conduct was not minor in its illegality and carried considerable blame. It held that correcting a serious error in a naturalization permission is an important public interest, so there was no illegality of exceeding or abusing discretion.
The authority that made the decision refused to grant the application. Its reasons were that the marriage was not genuine and that the spouse's fault was not clear. A lawsuit was filed to have this decision cancelled.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the plaintiff had been unable to lead a normal married life with the spouse for reasons not attributable to the plaintiff. The authority had judged that the plaintiff was also responsible for the breakdown of the marriage, but the court found that there was a serious error in the findings of fact on which that judgment was based. It therefore found that the decision exceeded or abused discretionary power and was unlawful.
A foreigner was married to a Korean national. Through court mediation or similar proceedings, visitation rights, meaning the right to see the child born to the couple, were recognized. This lawsuit concerns the foreigner's application to extend the period of stay.
What did the court decide?
The court noted that mediation and similar proceedings have the same effect as a final judgment. Even so, it found a concern that visitation rights could be effectively blocked by immigration-related measures, such as a refusal to grant an extension of stay. The court therefore held that, for a foreigner in this situation, the administrative authority is to decide whether to grant an extension of stay more carefully from a humanitarian perspective.
A foreigner who had long overstayed in Korea married a person who had gained Korean citizenship through marriage naturalization. The foreigner applied to change status to spouse of a citizen (F-6). The head of the immigration office said permission could not be granted and notified the foreigner to leave the country. A lawsuit was then filed to cancel this decision.
What did the court decide?
The head of the immigration office notified the foreigner to leave, on the ground that if a spouse who naturalized through marriage has held citizenship for less than 3 years, a status change cannot be permitted, even if the couple conceived or had a child in Korea. The court found that this decision did not exceed or abuse discretionary power. The first-instance ruling was reversed, and the applicant's claim was dismissed.
A foreign national of Chinese nationality married a man of Korean nationality. The head of the immigration office considered the marriage not genuine and did not permit an extension of the period of stay. A lawsuit was filed seeking cancellation of this decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the head of the immigration office, who made the decision, had misjudged the facts as to whether the marriage was genuine. The court therefore held that the decision was unlawful because it exceeded or abused the office's discretion, and cancelled it.
A foreigner who had been granted resident status as a marriage migrant of a Korean national applied for an extension of the stay period and related matters. A decision was issued not to grant this application, and a lawsuit was filed disputing whether that decision was lawful.
What did the court decide?
The court found it difficult to conclude that the breakdown of the marriage was due to reasons not attributable to this foreigner. It therefore held that the decision not to permit the extension of the stay period and related matters was lawful. It stated that where it cannot be concluded that the foreigner was unable to maintain a normal marriage for reasons not attributable to them, the authority may deem permission inappropriate and refuse it without acting unlawfully.
A decision was made not to permit an extension of the period of stay for a Chinese national married to a citizen of the Republic of Korea. The reason given was that the genuineness of the marriage was not recognized. A lawsuit was filed seeking cancellation of this decision.
What did the court decide?
The court set aside the decision that refused to permit an extension of the period of stay, a decision that had been made on the grounds that the genuineness of the marriage was not recognized.
A Pakistani national stayed in Korea on a non-professional employment visa. After registering a marriage with a Korean citizen, this person applied to change status to that of a spouse of a Korean citizen. The head of the immigration office refused, saying there was no valid marriage certificate under Pakistani law and no genuine married life. The applicant then sued to cancel that decision.
What did the court decide?
The court held that 'spouse' in the enforcement decree on status of stay means a foreign national whose marriage to a Korean citizen is recognized as established under Korean law, not one whose marriage is established under the law of the home country. The court found that the applicant had registered the marriage and had continued to live together with the spouse. It therefore cancelled the refusal as an unlawful decision based on a mistaken view of the facts, and ordered the authority that made the decision to bear the litigation costs.
A Korean man registered a marriage with a Vietnamese woman. After entering Korea, she lived with him for a month. He filed a lawsuit asking the court to confirm that the marriage is void. The first-instance court did not accept his claim. He appealed.
What did the court decide?
The appeals court overturned the first-instance judgment. It found that the woman registered the marriage as a means to enter Korea and work, without intending to form a genuine marital relationship. It also found that living together for a month merely created a temporary appearance of married life. Because there was no agreement to marry, the court confirmed that the marriage is void.
A paternity denial suit was filed on the ground that a child born during the marriage was not the husband's biological child. The plaintiff, the defendant and the child were all nationals of the People's Republic of China, and the defendant's current whereabouts were unknown. The plaintiff and the child lived in Busan.
What did the court decide?
Because the child's address was in Busan, the court found that the Busan Family Court had venue and that Korea had international jurisdiction to hear the case. It found that the marriage law of the People's Republic of China has no provision on paternity denial, and that the paternity denial provisions of the Korean Civil Act are mandatory rules that apply regardless of which country's law governs. Based on DNA test results and other evidence, the court determined that the child was clearly not the defendant's biological child, and granted the plaintiff's claim.
This collects 15 rulings on Rulings on marriage, marriage-migrant visas, spouse-of-national status and denial of paternity. Each case is laid out as what happened, then how the court ruled.
Can I apply a ruling directly to my own case?
No. A ruling decides the facts of that one case, so the outcome can differ for another case. For your own situation, check with an official body such as the immigration office with jurisdiction.
Where can I read the original ruling?
Each case has a “view original” link to the public post on the Supreme Court of Korea website. KoreaMoa does not reproduce full rulings; it only provides summaries.
