Судебная рутина
>> Продолжение этого

Параллельно с описываемым судебным процессом с имиграшкой происходило еще кое что.

Хозяин моей квартиры таки вспомнил, что кроме полиции и поклепов в имиграшку есть еще суд. У него был залог компании в 10,000,000вон за квартиру, который с лихвой покрывал любые неплатежи. Хозяин подал в суд на J&H (с целью изымания залога) и меня (о выселении). Я сразу же попросил бесплатного адвоката, получил разрешение, отдал адвокату бумаги о незаконном увольнении и отсутствии работы и выселение было отложено до решения основных дел. Больше мы с хозяином не пересекались.

Моя мама получила продление статуса на основании моего статуса временно отпущенного из "убежища" - и так оказалось можно, если не хочется нарушать закон и силой депортировать пенсионерку. Мама таки уехала в начале ноября 2004г.

Дело по увольнению шло нарочито неспешно. Было очевидно, что у J&H был припасен какой-то козырь, но она его хочет использовать, когда я не смогу ответить - т.е. ждала моего отъезда или еще чего.

6 января 2005г. в дело по депортации включились еще два представителя имиграшки. Они добавили в дело только один документ:

Exhibit №50 или "О Учете Полетов"


Ну и текст, конечно:
(выделено мной)

As in the previous Response, the Defendant already had the compulsory deportation decision on August 2, 2004, and the Plaintiff already had been transferred to Hwaseong Foreigner Detention Center on July 30, 2004 with the staff for the Defendant at Hwaseong Foreigner Detention Center, Ko Dong-jun, presented with the Protection Order and Order of Compulsory Deportation to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2004, but the Plaintiff refused to sign on the documents. The Plaintiff requested for temporary relief from the protection on August 6, 2004 and got the temporary relief from the protection on the day. This type of action was available only for a person who received the order for compulsory deportation that it proves that the Plaintiff was fully aware of receiving the order for compulsory deportation, and argument of lack of knowledge is false belief.

Ну т.е. раз дал залог, значит знал за что сидит и документы видел. Очень остроумно.

The visa that the Plaintiff held at the time of his entry was issued based on the invitation of the employee that, if certain situation arises to terminate the employment, the Plaintiff would have the cause of stay in the Republic of Korea from the employment extinguished as well. In particular, the Plaintiff wished to change the domestic workplace. If so, he should have the consent of the employer and assignment of new work place, the prerequisites of changing the work place, before reporting the employment termination of the (original) employer who had issued the invitation for employment, however, the Plaintiff did not have these requirements that, at the time, and he should be fully understood this situation, and signed on the Order to Depart.

Т.е. новое место работы надо найти не покидая старого. И точка.

On the Deletion of Signature by the Plaintiff on the Order to Depart and Order for Compulsory Deportation As shown on Eul No. 5, the Order of Deportation is confirmed when the Plaintiff signs, and the Order for Compulsory Deportation informs the foreign subject that he/she is subject for compulsory deportation after making the review and decision for compulsory deportation by the Immigration Office, and the signature of the subject person is required. However, the Plaintiff refused to sign on the document. It is questionable if anyone who is disposed with the compulsory deportation, and received the disposition of temporary cancellation for protection based on the above, would make such an argument.

Опять врут о том, что я отказался подписывать. На документе об этом не сказано. И подписи свидетеля нет.

On the Argument that this Action is Brought Since No New Visa Would be Issued for 5 Years The Plaintiff is a person who received the extension for deportation for three times after the initial Order of Deportation. There would not be much of a problem that the Plaintiff had to raise had the Plaintiff departed within the period and receive C-3 (short-term stay), a simple visa issued in a day. Looking at the fact of making entry for 6 times in the past, simple departure and return with the good faith showing of complying with the Immigration Act of the Republic of Korea, rather than persistent on the Plaintiff's assertion on economic situation. After receiving the disposition of the Order of Compulsory Deportation caused by the wrongful persistence of the Plaintiff, and raising the litigation due to the reasons of regulation on visa issuance shows how the Plaintiff disregard the Immigration Act and other laws and orders of Korea that he does not have any reasonable basis for the assertions, and in the event of persons subject for compulsory deportation under the Immigration Act but leave Korea with his own fund would have 3 years of not issuing visa but for those who have justifiable cause of entry, including to carry out litigation or resolution of wage, the restriction of entry is temporarily held and issue the visa that the assertion of the Plaintiff is not true to the fact.

Тут утверждают, что даже депортированному могут сделать визу "С-3" за один день. Опять нагло врут.

We have permitted for extension for 3 times on the deportation period under the Order of Deportation even with the protest of J&H on why the Immigration Office did not take action against foreigner who caused vast damage to a small business and incurred damages to the resident of Korea. The reason is to focus on protection of interests for the Plaintiff on the contrary to the interests of the domestic employer.

The Plaintiff who holds a foreign nationality and neglected the Immigration Act of Korea after enjoying the benefits of extension for deportation mentions the discretionary operation of the laws and regulations by the Immigration Office, mentions the closeness of J&H and the Defendant, for argues for stay for the national interest of Korea. This is extreme case of selfishness and arrogance that what is not good for him is all toxic and harmful.

9) The position of the Defendant is that the national interest of the Republic of Korea would not be served by having such a foreign person staying in the Republic of Korea, and we hereby pray to this Honorable Court that the claims of the Plaintiff that have no legal ground whatsoever have to be dismissed to set the legal justice of the Republic of Korea for good.

Ну тут думаю и так всё ясно…

Короче суд первой инстанции имиграшники выиграли легко. Но я сразу подал апеляцию ирешил таки пролить свет на все эти истории о “добровольном отказе от визы” и т.п.

После обвинения полицейского удалось получить документы подтверждающие арест.


17 февраля 2005г., через пять с половиной месяцев после того, как J&H подала в суд на Комиссию таки было назначено первое заседание. J&H пригласила “свидетелем” по уши вовлеченного в подделку печатей, незаконный арест, угрозы мне и моей матери Администратора Lee Jong-won. Он давно уволился из J&H и потому мог быть "свидетелем".

Показания были даны под присягой. Было задано очень много вопросов. В конце концов мне таки удалось прямо под присягой поймать его на прямом противоречии и заставить признать подделку печатей и сделать прочие интересные заявления:

(выделено мной)

Judge
37
Do you mean that the work of Participant was the problem and Witness prepared the cord voluntarily but there was no official document on the work performance of employees by the Company?
- Yes.

Defendant-Litigator
40
Is Witness concealing the record on the overtime work done by Participant during the vacation period of the Christmas vacation?
- There is no such fact.

Judge
54
Are you saying that the reason the wage was not paid was that Participant was informed of the availability but was too busy not to come to receive it?
- Yes.

78
Did you do mean that you did not know the accurate date although you knew that it was after all things were said and done for unauthorized work and unauthorized breaking away from work of Participant for the cause of dismissal?
- Yes.

(Present Evidence Eul No. 17 (1) or (3))
79
Looking into the attendance record book of September, October and November of 2003, there are stamps of Participant, and who prepared this attendance record book?
- Witness prepared to report to the SBC. When we asked Participant to sign on the attendance record book for reporting to the SBC, he refused to sign.

80
Is this the reason that Participant sued Witness?
- Yes. The reason for affixing the seal was that, when re made the report to the SBC, it said that, “the signature is not good. Stamp the seal.” Therefore, Witness made the seal of Participant for affixation.

Defendant-Auxiliary Participant
84
According to the document reported by the Plaintiff Company to the SBC, the record indicated that there was no problem, how about it?
- The attendance record book simply reported whether the subject person attended or not, and it was not a report of assessing Participant.

Judge
88
Participant began to request for the payment of bonus, and thereafter Witness began to prepare the work attitude of Participant in detail?
- Yes.

89
Participant worked on weekends when he worked at Pohang, how about it?
- Witness never seen Participant come to work before 10:00 while he worked in Seoul or worked in Pohang.

7 февраля 2005г. я получил очередной приказ-угрозу от Джонгсангжина:

Exhibit №51 или "О Искусстве Сводничества"




3 марта 2005г. я получил "последнее корейское предупреждение" от Джонгсангжина:

Exhibit №52 или "О Законном Шантаже"



Из этих документов хорошо видно, что мне просто не оставили выбора, кроме как исправить баг в моей разработке к 31 марта и быть арестованным "за незаконную работу"...

>> Дальше см. тут