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

A. On October 17, 2007, the Plaintiff was a foreigner of Vietnam’s nationality and filed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on October 17, 2007 and obtained a visa (F-2) and resided with the permission to extend the period of sojourn on December 10, 207.

B. Around April 2009, the Plaintiff filed a divorce suit against B with the Seoul Family Court (2009da41994). On May 19, 2009, the said court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “The Plaintiff and B shall divorce on the grounds of their responsibilities,” and the said ruling of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”).

After October 31, 2011, the status of stay changed to the qualification of visit residence (F-1-6) on December 3, 2013 while the Plaintiff was staying in the capacity of marriage immigration (F-6-3).

On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for permission for change of status of sojourn to the Defendant for marriage immigration (F-6-3). However, on June 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of nonpermission on the ground that “the Plaintiff was unable to submit objective evidentiary data on his/her spouse’s causes” to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff brought a divorce suit due to reasons attributable to the Plaintiff’s economic influence, frequent drinking, verbal abuse, assault, etc., and then brought a divorce suit following the decision of recommending reconciliation. The instant disposition is based on misunderstanding of facts. (2) The Plaintiff, without previous conviction, has been able to abide by the legal order of the Republic of Korea and has lived in good faith. The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case has lost the foundation for all of the lives formed in the Republic of Korea, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff to support his parents living in Vietnam, and making his livelihood difficult. Thus, the instant disposition is rather than