Seoul Administrative Court, August 13, 2026, Case No. 2025Gudan53041
The immigration authority refused an F-6 extension for a foreign national who had lived apart from his Korean spouse for approximately thirteen years, citing a lack of a genuine marital relationship. The court agreed that married life had ended and that the applicant no longer met the F-6-1 requirements, but rejected the conclusion that he also failed to qualify under F-6-3, the category for marital breakdown. It set aside the refusal because F-6-3 could apply before a legal divorce and the authority had not established its ground for refusal: that primary responsibility for the breakdown did not lie with the Korean spouse.
1. Key issues
(a) Marital breakdown before divorce
For F-6-1 eligibility as the spouse of a Korean national, the court examined whether married life continued at the time of the refusal. During their lengthy separation, the couple had not established or maintained shared marital assets and had had little contact. The Korean spouse had withdrawn her sponsorship, had not renewed it, and stated that she did not intend to resume living together and wanted a divorce. The applicant’s payments did not appear to exceed support for their child. The court found that a normal marital relationship no longer existed. The applicant’s argument that the marriage had been genuine when registered did not change that finding.
F-6 also includes the F-6-3 category for a person who, while residing in Korea as the spouse of a Korean national, becomes unable to maintain a normal marital relationship for reasons not attributable to that person. The applicant argued that he qualified on this basis. Having found that the marriage had broken down, the court therefore still had to examine responsibility for that breakdown and whether F-6-3 applied.
The authority argued that the applicant could not qualify for F-6-3 until he was legally divorced, relying on the reference to “death, disappearance and divorce” in the status-of-stay manual. The court first observed that the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Act refers to an inability to maintain a normal marital relationship and does not require a legal divorce. The manual used “divorce” in its heading but did not narrow the Decree’s scope in its text. Its supporting-document list also included a divorce complaint as well as a divorce judgment. This contemplated assessing marital breakdown while divorce proceedings were pending. The absence of a final divorce therefore did not exclude F-6-3 eligibility.
(b) Primary responsibility for the breakdown
The remaining question was whether the breakdown had occurred for reasons not attributable to the applicant. The court held that the foreign spouse did not have to be entirely free from fault: the requirement covered cases in which the Korean spouse bore primary responsibility for the breakdown. Requiring the Korean spouse to be wholly at fault could deter a foreign spouse from exercising the right to divorce for fear of losing residence status and could enable the Korean spouse to exploit that vulnerability.
To determine responsibility for the initial separation, the court examined whether the Korean spouse’s move to her parents’ home had been agreed. She had unilaterally moved there with the child, although the applicant’s work and the couple’s home were in Seoul. Relocation would have meant a substantial change, including living with her parents, yet there was no evidence of meaningful discussion about it. The court also found her account that the applicant had promised to follow her difficult to accept at face value. It rejected the explanation that the separation resulted from his broken promise and found that it began with her unilateral decision.
The reasons the couple did not resume living together pointed in the same direction. The applicant continued to ask his spouse to live with him in Seoul. She rejected the housing he proposed and maintained that she would stay with her parents unless he secured an apartment. The court noted that she imposed this condition without considering the couple’s finances or the income the applicant could realistically earn as a foreign worker. His continued separation from his spouse did not, by itself, justify attributing responsibility to him for abandoning married life.
The child support the applicant sent from 2012 to 2024 was insufficient to establish that married life continued, but it mattered to the assessment of responsibility: he had continued supporting his child after separation. The court found that the Korean spouse, by opposing his continued residence despite the child’s wish to maintain contact with his father, had further aggravated the breakdown. After examining the decision that caused the separation, the reasons cohabitation did not resume and the parties’ conduct afterward, the court found the authority’s evidence insufficient to establish that primary responsibility did not lie with the Korean spouse.
2. Implications
A foreign national whose marriage breaks down while residing in Korea under F-6 status, and whose authorized stay expires before divorce proceedings conclude, can seek an extension under the F-6-3 requirements on the basis that the Korean spouse bears primary responsibility. This judgment provides grounds to challenge exclusion from that assessment solely because no divorce judgment has yet been issued.
Who bears primary responsibility for the breakdown is an eligibility question that the court determines directly from the evidence. The immigration authority’s discretion over whether to grant permission does not limit the court’s examination of that requirement. In litigation, the applicant and the authority must each present and substantiate the circumstances supporting their position, while the authority bears the burden of proving its ground for refusal: that primary responsibility does not lie with the Korean spouse. The applicant can challenge the authority’s assessment by comparing the spouse’s account of the separation with the couple’s actual discussions, or by showing whether employment, income and housing conditions allowed them to resume living together. If those facts establish that the Korean spouse bears primary responsibility, a refusal based on failure to meet the marital-breakdown requirement must be set aside.
Law Firm Lawyeon Immigration Law Center provides legal services specialized in the integrated handling of Korean immigration and visa matters together with criminal cases and immigration-violation reviews, built on extensive case experience, professional networks, and practical knowledge.
The Center brings together attorneys Junwoo Min, Dohyun Nam, and Seungchul Kim, criminal-law specialists with extensive immigration advisory experience, and Senior Advisor Taemin Ahn. Mr Ahn has served at the Seoul Global Center, headed a Ministry of Justice Global Start-up Immigration Center, and served on the Foreign Workers' Rights Protection Council of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Administration. Together, they established Law Firm Lawyeon's dedicated immigration practice.
In particular, for departure orders and entry-ban dispositions that follow a final criminal conviction, the Center presents effective solutions through an integrated strategy spanning criminal defense, objections to the disposition, and applications to lift the entry ban, and it supports stable business activity in Korea by managing many clients' immigration risk.
This article is intended as general information about the relevant legal framework and is not legal advice on any individual matter. Determinations concerning immigration status may differ depending on specific facts such as residence history, income and contractual relationships. If your situation requires individual review, you may request a consultation with the Immigration Law Center of Law Firm Lawyeon (lawyeon-immigration.com).