A. On December 21, 1999, Plaintiff A entered and stayed in Korea as industrial trainee on December 21, 199, and reported marriage with Plaintiff B on November 30, 2004.

B. On January 18, 2005, Plaintiff A left the Republic of Korea as Pakistan, and thereafter returned to the Republic of Korea on June 17, 2006 as the spouse qualification of the citizen, and stayed in Korea.

C. On February 18, 2013, Plaintiff A applied for permission to extend the period of stay to the Defendant. However, as a result of the investigation, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusing the extension of the period of stay to Plaintiff A on June 14, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the said Plaintiff’s marriage to Plaintiff B again constitutes a heavy divorce prohibited in the Republic of Korea after the said Plaintiff married with Pakistan female in Pakistan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of Plaintiff B’s lawsuit and Plaintiff A’s claim for the determination and revocation of an on-the-spot divorce investigation in Pakistan is legitimate

A. The plaintiff B's lawsuit seeking revocation of the administrative disposition can be brought by a person who has a legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition (Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act). As seen earlier, the direct counterpart to the disposition of this case is the plaintiff A, and the plaintiff B cannot be deemed to have infringed upon any right or interest due to the disposition of this case or the determination of the local divorce investigation in the front of the disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiff B has no legal interest in seeking revocation, and therefore, the plaintiff

Therefore, Plaintiff B’s lawsuit is unlawful.

B. The part of the plaintiff A's claim for the cancellation of the decision on the local intermediate divorce investigation in Pakistan as part of the plaintiff Gap's lawsuit is an internal procedure for confirmation of facts prior to the disposition in this case, and it cannot be said that the defendant directly affects the rights and obligations of the above plaintiff. Thus, it shall be deemed that the administrative disposition subject to the revocation lawsuit is an administrative disposition.