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

A. On December 11, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) entered the Republic of Korea with a invitation from the People’s Republic of China on December 11, 2005; (b) entered the Republic of Korea on December 4, 2008; (c) entered the Republic of Korea as a visiting employment (H-2) on January 12, 2009; (d) left the Republic of Korea on January 20, 2012; and (e) entered the Republic of Korea as the same qualification on March 4, 2012 and stayed in Korea.

B. On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff, while staying in the Republic of Korea, received a summary order of KRW 2 million (2,00,000,000,000 (20,000,000,000) by the Suwon District Court for the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

C. On the other hand, on December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired national technical qualifications as a metal scrap technician, and on January 8, 2014, filed an application for change of the status of stay to the Defendant to change the status of stay to an overseas Korean (F-4).

On April 29, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff.

A disposition of denying an application for change of status of stay on the ground of “violation of domestic law” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful in its procedural process by failing to present the grounds for disposition in detail. 2) In the guidance manual by sojourn status of the foreigner residing in the Republic of Korea, the status of the foreigner residing in the Republic of Korea and the qualification of the overseas Koreans (F-4) is bound by the Ministry of Justice’s “the policy manual for overseas Koreans who are easily known to the Ministry of Justice” of the Immigration Policy Headquarters of Korea (Hi Korea). The “the fact that the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (F-4)” which served as the basis for the disposition of this case does not constitute grounds for restricting the qualification of overseas Koreans

In addition, the plaintiff is driving under influence due to a dispute between the proxy driver and the driving engineer, and the odometer is shorter.