Rulings on changing, extending or cancelling stay status and on visa issuance · 9 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.
The plaintiff, who received a high-skilled visa in the UK, applied to the Head of the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Administration for permission to extend the overseas travel period. The Head refused, on the grounds that the high-skilled visa is merely an immigration status and does not amount to conditional permanent residence.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the refusal of permission to extend the overseas travel period, made on the grounds that the high-skilled visa is merely an immigration status and does not amount to conditional permanent residence, did not exceed or abuse discretion and was therefore not unlawful.
A foreigner without a status of stay permitting employment activities was caught while providing day labor once. A departure order and a residence permit revocation were issued against this foreigner, and a lawsuit was filed against these dispositions.
What did the court decide?
The court found that the departure order and the residence permit revocation violated the principle of proportionality and were therefore unlawful.
A foreign national applied for a change of residence status together with a refugee application on the day the period of stay expired. A disposition refusing to permit the change of residence status was issued, and a lawsuit was filed over it. The disposition was made in accordance with the Ministry of Justice's refugee affairs guidelines.
What did the court decide?
The court found there was ample room to view the refugee application as abusive, made as a means of extending the period of stay. It held that the refusal of the change of residence status, made in accordance with the Ministry of Justice's refugee affairs guidelines, neither exceeded nor abused discretion and was therefore lawful.
A foreigner married to a Korean national applied to change residence status for infertility treatment and similar reasons. The agency took the view that such treatment could fall under humanitarian reasons, such as pregnancy, childbirth or child-rearing, set out in the Ministry of Justice guidelines, but that, at the least, a procedure for actual infertility treatment or a similar medical procedure had to be under way. On that basis it asked for related documents. It did not approve the application because the documents were insufficient, and a lawsuit was filed over this decision.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the refusal, made on the ground that the submitted documents were insufficient, did not exceed or abuse discretion.
The agency that made the decision told the plaintiff of the revocation of residence status only orally, not in writing. The parties did not dispute this fact. The agency argued that the procedural defect was cured because it issued the written disposition ten days later.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the Administrative Procedures Act provision requiring a written disposition to be prepared and delivered applies in full to revocation of residence status. It found it hard to accept that there were urgent circumstances or that the matter was minor. A disposition made without a written document has a serious and obvious defect and is void, and the defect of a void disposition cannot be cured by later delivery of the document. The court therefore found this disposition void as a matter of course.
The Ministry of Justice required foreign instructors staying in Korea to submit a health certificate in connection with permission to extend their period of stay. The certificate was meant to check for drug use and HIV infection. The basis for the requirement was the guideline "Measures to Strengthen Residence Management for Foreign Language Conversation Instructors [E-2]".
What did the court decide?
The court judged that the content of this guideline cannot be seen as clearly lacking objective reasonableness. Rather, it found that the guideline accords with the purpose of Article 11(1)(1) of the former Immigration Control Act, and that its legitimacy and reasonable necessity are recognized. The court therefore judged that it is difficult to regard the requirement as violating the constitutional right to equality, freedom of occupational choice, or the secrecy and freedom of private life, or as violating international covenants.
A Vietnamese woman married a Korean national and entered Korea with a marriage migrant residence status. She later divorced her spouse and applied to the head of the immigration office for permission to extend her stay, but permission was not granted. A lawsuit was then filed seeking cancellation of the refusal decision.
What did the court decide?
The court found it difficult to regard the divorce as a case where a normal marital relationship could not be maintained for reasons not attributable to the applicant. It therefore held that the requirements for marriage migrant residence status were not met, and that the refusal decision was justified.
The plaintiff, a Chinese national, applied to extend the period of stay under the specific activities status of stay, which is recognized for people working at a foreign-food specialty restaurant. The authority that made the decision refused the extension on the grounds that the restaurant where the plaintiff works is not a foreign-food specialty restaurant.
What did the court decide?
The court took into account that the restaurant completed its business registration and business operation filing as a Chinese restaurant, that its signboard says Chinese cuisine, and that it sells other Chinese dishes besides lamb skewers. It therefore found the restaurant to be a foreign-food specialty restaurant and cancelled the decision refusing to extend the period of stay.
A Chinese national of Korean descent, staying in Korea under a Visiting Employment status, drove while intoxicated and hit the car ahead, injuring two people with wounds requiring about 3 weeks of treatment. The person was sentenced to a fine of 5,000,000 won (KRW). The person later applied for a change of status of stay, but the head of the immigration office issued a departure order and decided not to grant a stay extension and related requests. The person filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of both dispositions.
What did the court decide?
The court dismissed the person's claim. It found that the crime harms the maintenance of order in Korea, that the nature of the offense is not minor given the victims' injuries, and that there was no motive for the drunk driving worth taking into account. It found the departure order not excessively harsh, since it gave the maximum departure period of 30 days. It also found no illegality in the denial of the stay extension, because it was made in accordance with the person's withdrawal of the application and stated intention to leave voluntarily.
What do the Stay Status & Period of Stay rulings cover?
This collects 9 rulings on Rulings on changing, extending or cancelling stay status and on visa issuance. 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.
