체류기간연장등불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding or supplementing the following grounds for the judgment, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial at the time of appeal are not significantly different from those alleged by the first instance court. However, even if considering the Plaintiff’s above assertion, it does not differ from the fact finding and determination by the first instance court. 【No evidence exists to acknowledge it,” the fourth 8 of the first instance court’s judgment, which added the following reasons to “No evidence to acknowledge it,” and “No evidence to acknowledge it,” the evidence No. 2 and 3 of the judgment is prepared using the attached Form No. 43 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act (which means evidence corresponding thereto, but the evidence No. 2 of the judgment No. 1 cannot be the evidence to support the “application for change of sojourn period,” and it appears that the document notifying the Plaintiff that he would not grant permission for extension of sojourn period,” and that “No. 2 of the above written evidence is included in the above form itself, and no evidence to support the above facts presented by the Plaintiff No. 1 and No. 3 of the judgment at the first instance court cannot be presented at all. 5.