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

A. The plaintiff and the non-party B, who is his spouse, are foreigners of Mongolian nationality.

B. On August 3, 2015, Nonparty B entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay C-3 (Short-term Visit) on August 3, 2015, and obtained the status of stay as the status of stay D-4 (General Training) on November 2, 2015, and continued to stay in the Republic of Korea with the permission for extension of the period of stay granted several times thereafter.

C. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay B-2 (tourism) on March 23, 2016, and obtained permission for change of the status of stay on May 4, 2016, and continued to stay in the Republic of Korea with the permission for extension of the period of stay granted several times.

On May 15, 2017, Nonparty B received an order for departure from the Defendant to June 15, 2017, on the ground that he/she applied for an extension of the period of stay and filed an application for an act prohibited under Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Immigration Control Act (such as submitting a forged document, etc. as supporting evidence or submitting an application stating false facts).

E. On August 3, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 24, 2017, on the ground that the primary resident of the Plaintiff was subject to a departure order from the Plaintiff.

F. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but on April 26, 2018, rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Nonparty B, who is the spouse of the Plaintiff’s assertion, participated in most classes while attending the International Language Research Institute at Cuniversity. The attendance rate is at least 80%.

The attendance rate of Nonparty B is the same.