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

A. On July 22, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on July 22, 2009, and obtained the stay permit on April 23, 2010 (F-2), and obtained the stay permit on August 16, 2012, and extended the period of stay by September 4, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff applied for permission to extend the period of stay on July 12, 2016, but the Defendant rendered a decision to deny the said application against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2016 on the ground that “the lack of marriage authenticity, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful that the instant disposition based on the lack of the authenticity of marriage between the Plaintiff and B was an abuse of discretion, even though the Plaintiff maintained a normal marital life by marriage with B around July 2009.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1) Since permission for extension of the period of sojourn under the Immigration Control Act has the nature of a permanent authority to grant a new period of sojourn exceeding the scope of the original period of sojourn, the permitting authority shall have discretion to decide whether to grant permission, taking into account the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn, influence on the public interest, etc., even though the applicant satisfied the requirements prescribed in the relevant statutes. 2) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to maintain a marital relationship based on the genuine intent, and it is difficult to view the instant disposition as abuse of discretionary authority, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff on May 31, 2004.