2...

On August 16, 2010, the Plaintiff, as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), entered the Republic of Korea for a visa for study (D-2) and was staying there, and applied for the alteration of status of sojourn to the permanent resident status (F-5) on July 25, 2011 on the ground that he/she is the mother-child B who acquired the nationality by naturalization in the Republic of

In the process of examining the plaintiff's above application, the defendants found that the father C (D) and the mother E (F) were entered in the family register submitted by the plaintiff while applying for the status of stay abroad, while the family register submitted at the time of applying for the status of stay abroad was entered in the family register as father C (D) and mother B (G).

Accordingly, on March 10, 2014, the head of the defendant Immigration Office issued a disposition for departure order (hereinafter “instant order for departure”) with the deadline for departure fixed on April 8, 2014 on the ground that the plaintiff violated Article 7-2 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The head of the defendant Immigration Office rendered a disposition for non-permission of alteration of the status of stay by setting the deadline for departure as April 2, 2014 pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on April 2, 2014 (hereinafter “disposition for non-permission of alteration of the status of stay of this case”; and each of the above dispositions was collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 1, and the overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) after the parent’s divorce, the parent left Korea to the Republic of Korea; (b) the parent-child was admitted to the Mauri University; and (c) one student among the dormitory life in the school was subject to the Maula and was eventually suspended from studies.

The plaintiff, who became aware of this fact.