2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff filed a report on marriage with B, a national of the Republic of Korea on January 31, 2005, and entered the Republic of Korea on April 18, 2006, as the spouse (F-2-1, the above medicine was changed to F-6-1 on December 15, 201) status of stay, and has been staying there several times after obtaining permission to extend the period of stay.

B. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to extend the period of stay with the Defendant, and the Defendant, after conducting a fact-finding survey, ordered on November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea until December 8, 2015 when granting permission to refuse to extend the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) due to the lack of authenticity in marriage, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case in this case is unlawful in the procedure since he did not provide reasonable grounds to the extent that he can know the grounds for the disposition of this case.

(2) A deviation from discretionary authority and the abuse Plaintiff’s discretionary authority completed a marriage report based on the genuine intent with B, and thus, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful as it was due to misconception of the fact.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. (1) In a case where, as a general rule, a party’s disposition rejecting the authorization or permission, etc. of a request for a trial as to a procedural violation by clarifying the grounds and regulations, where the party presents considerable reasons to the extent that he/she can be aware of the grounds, the relevant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful due to such failure, even if the grounds and reasons for the relevant disposition are not clearly specified

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Du8912 delivered on May 17, 2002). However, according to the evidence No. 1, the notice of refusal to extend the period of stay, etc., stating the content of the instant disposition.