2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China, completed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on April 13, 2007, and entered the Republic of Korea on June 11, 2007 as the status of stay (F-2's spouse) (F-2's spouse) (F-2's spouse) and obtained permission for extension of the status of stay of each resident (F-2) four times from June 22, 2007 to May 6, 201.

On November 1, 2011, the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act was amended to newly establish the status of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6) on December 1, 201, and came into force on December 15, 201. The Plaintiff obtained permission for the status of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6) until June 11, 2015 in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act amended on May 27, 2013.

On July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for permission to change the status of permanent residence (F-5). However, on April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was non-permission.

On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained permission to extend the status of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6) until June 11, 2017.

In other words, the plaintiff applied for permission to change the status of permanent residence (F-5), but was not permitted on July 12, 2016.

On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to extend the status of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6) with the Defendant. On August 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to permit the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground of “normal failure to confirm the marriage movement, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and Acts and subordinate statutes related to the purport of whole pleadings: as shown in the attached Form.

The main point of the plaintiff's assertion has continuously maintained the marital relationship based on the genuine will after the report of marriage with B.

Although the Plaintiff temporarily fell with B, it was inevitable due to the Plaintiff’s temporary separation from the region at that time, and the Plaintiff’s children were going to the Incheon Diplomatic School, and the occurrence of the Aamam is not to talk with the Plaintiff on June 2016.