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

A. The Plaintiff, a Chinese national woman, completed a marriage report with a Korean national B on November 1, 2004, and entered the Republic of Korea on February 19, 2005, and acquired the spouse qualification (F-2-1, current F-6-1) of the citizen on March 7, 2005.

On June 11, 2009, the Plaintiff divorced with B by the decision of the court's recommendation for reconciliation, and on February 24, 2012, the status of stay was changed to F-63.

B. The Plaintiff applied for a simplified naturalization on September 14, 2007, but was denied on October 19, 2009 due to the authenticity of marriage and the lack of actual marital life requirements. On February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for a simplified naturalization again, but was disqualified as a failure to comply with the basic knowledge requirements (e.g., failure of interview) on February 24, 2012.

C. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of stay in the capacity of a married coal (F63) accompanied by the said decision of recommending reconciliation.

Accordingly, on September 30, 2014, the Defendant rejected the said application from the Plaintiff on the ground that “Insufficientness of marriage, lack of proof of the person who is presumed to have been divorced, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Eul-1 to 4 evidence

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

가. 원고 주장의 요지 1) 원고는 2005. 2. 19. 한국에 입국하여 B과 부부로 생활하였다. 그런데 B의 자식들이 원고를 가족으로 인정하지 않았고, 이를 핑계로 B도 원고를 무시하며 외도를 일삼다가 2008년경 원고에게 집에서 나가라고 요구하였다. 원고는 극단적 상황을 피해 일단 집에서 나왔다가 재결합을 시도하였으나, B으로부터 앞으로 연락하면 중국으로 �아내버리겠다는 협박을 듣고 더 이상 혼인관계를 유지할 수 없다고 판단하여 이혼소송을 제기하였고, 법원에서 B의 귀책사유로 이혼하는 내용의 화해권고결정이 확정되었다. 2) 이처럼 원고와 B은 4년간 혼인관계를 유지하다가, B의 귀책사유로 파탄되었음이 위 화해권고결정에 의해 입증된다.

Therefore, the defendant's instant case.