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

A. On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) entered the Republic of Korea for the purpose of taking a course in the Korean language education course at the University; (b) filed an application with the Defendant on August 24, 2018 for permission to change the status of stay in the study (D-2) on the ground that he/she entered the Cuniversity graduate school.

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On September 5, 2018, the Defendant rendered a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the lack of financial capacity verification documents” was insufficient.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the said appeal on March 12, 2019.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. There is no legal basis to demand a balance above a certain amount as a requirement for the Plaintiff’s assertion alteration permission.

In addition, the plaintiff can fully prepare funds necessary for studying life due to living expenses, etc. sent by his/her parents to Uzbekistan.

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the ground of “insufficient documents proving financial capacity” is unlawful as well as the absence of legal basis and the disposition of this case which is excessively harsh to the plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff did not present any specific assertion as to the illegality of the instant disposition, but, in light of the reference documents and the statements in No. 5, submitted by the Plaintiff after the closing of argument, I am as above).

Judgment

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be seen by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statements in the evidence Nos. 5 through 8 of this case, the disposition of this case is not unlawful as it is a disposition that took place without legal basis or abused discretion.

Therefore, the plaintiff.