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

A. The Plaintiff, as a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), filed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on March 25, 2005, and obtained on August 16, 2005 permission for extension of five-time period of stay after entering the Republic of Korea as the status of sojourn (F-2) under [Attachment Table 1] [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 27 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201) and the status of stay under [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 27 (F-2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201);

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for change of status as a permanent resident (F-5) on November 9, 2012; however, on May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was denied on the grounds of suspicion of the authenticity of marriage, etc., and the Defendant extended the period of sojourn for the Plaintiff’s marriage immigration (F-6) until July 16, 2014 on the condition that a survey was conducted again at the time of extension of the later period on January 16, 2014.

C. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the sojourn period for marriage immigrants (F-6) (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on March 31, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision of nonpermission against the Plaintiff on the ground of “the lack of marriage authenticity, uncertainty of the spouse’s cause attributable to marriage, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been made from August 2005 to the effect that the Plaintiff had the substance of a genuine marital relationship with B, and that the Plaintiff’s liability for the failure of marital life lies in B, the spouse, who is the Republic of Korea. The instant disposition should be revoked as a deviation from and abuse of discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 8, each of the following evidence revealed prior to the facts of recognition: