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

On May 7, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of his nationality for short-term use (C-2-1) and stayed in excess of June 6, 2001, the expiration date of his stay. On October 25, 2003, the Plaintiff was granted the permission for alteration of his stay in non-professional employment (E-9-L) in accordance with the Government of the Republic of Korea’s “Measures of Foreignization of Illegal Sojourn” but the Plaintiff was granted the permission for alteration on May 8, 2006 while he was staying in excess of May 7, 2005, the expiration date of his stay.

After that, on April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into the general short-term visit (C-3-4) and stayed in excess of May 28, 2014, the expiration date of the period of stay. On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status and obtained a change of status as a refugee applicant (G-1-5) on August 5, 2015, but received a decision to deny refugee status on April 3, 2017, and filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the decision to deny refugee status as the Seoul Administrative Court 2018Gudan5355 on March 8, 2018, but it continued the appellate trial after being ruled against May 29, 2019.

On the other hand, on June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for extension of the sojourn period to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant rendered a disposition not to permit extension of the Plaintiff’s sojourn period (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the foreigner, who had stayed for not less than one year from the date of entry into the Republic of Korea, applied for refugee recognition during illegal stay, constitutes “application for re-application without changing circumstances, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's argument that the disposition of this case was legitimate, was originally Muslim, and the plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea by avoiding the gambling of Islamic religious leaders. At present, in the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff is a true refugee who is likely to be persecution if he returns to Korea due to his religious life, and one year after entry.