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

The plaintiff, as a foreigner of Chinese nationality, married with B, and married with son and son and son as her child, entered the Republic of Korea on June 12, 2002 with the short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on short-term stay on June 12, 2002, and was divorced from B who was residing in China on August 9, 2004 while illegally staying, and left Korea after the voluntary declaration of illegal stay on May 15, 2005.

On June 7, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay for visit (F-1) on June 7, 2006, changed the status of stay to the status of visit employment (H-2) on May 29, 2007, and reported an illegal stay with the deceased E (the deceased on May 6, 2015, hereinafter “the deceased”) who is a national of the Republic of Korea on June 11, 2009.

On May 13, 2010, the Plaintiff was granted the status of stay (F-2) on May 13, 2010, and changed the status of stay into the status of marriage immigration (F-6) on November 27, 2012, and subsequently filed an application for nationality on June 10, 2014 (hereinafter “application for nationality of this case”), but was rejected on the ground of “insufficientness of marriage” on November 23, 2015.

Accordingly, on December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of sojourn period for marriage immigrants (F-6) (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on January 11, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny the extension of sojourn period, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was living together with his spouse who was Korean before the marriage dissolution, and for other reasons, such as the lack of the authenticity of marriage,” on the ground that the Plaintiff was “the refusal of the extension of sojourn period, etc.” (

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s statement (No. 3) and statement of statement (No. 4) prepared at the time of the application for nationality of this case, which were made at the time of the application for nationality of this case, was made by the investigator’s unjust coercion, and the Plaintiff maintained a marital relationship with the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it misleads the factual basis or deviatess from discretionary power.

Judgment

1. Articles 10(1) and 24 of the Immigration Control Act.