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

A. On July 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the Republic of Korea, entered the Republic of Korea as a general training (D-4) sojourn status while receiving the Korean language training at the graduate school university B, and extended the period of sojourn by January 10, 2018.

B. On August 1, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for permission to change his/her status of stay to study (D-2) on the ground that he/she intends to enter C University graduate schools, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on August 30, 2018 on the ground that the Defendant failed to meet the standards for examination of his/her status of stay, such as registration fees.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the part seeking revocation of the instant disposition among the administrative appeals filed by the Plaintiff on December 11, 2018.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff applied for the change of status of stay along with all documents prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendant demanded submission of evidentiary documents concerning finance, which is not stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations, and the instant disposition was in question, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

3. The indication of the relevant regulations shall be as shown in the attached Form;

4. Determination

A. Since permission to change sojourn status under the Immigration Control Act has the nature of a permanent disposition that grants the applicant the right to engage in activities that are different from the original status of sojourn, the permitting authority has the discretion to decide whether to grant permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn, impact on public interest, etc. even if the applicant satisfies the requirements prescribed by the relevant statutes.

Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga45 Decided July 14, 2016