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

A. On February 18, 2014, regarding the part on which the Plaintiff sought revocation of the decision to refuse the extension of sojourn period as of February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the decision to refuse the extension of sojourn period as of February 18, 2014 by the Defendant was unlawful. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation under the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan11901, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on August 27, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive, it is recognized that the instant lawsuit again filed on August 31, 2015, even though the judgment became final and conclusive, the instant lawsuit was filed on August 31, 2015. The instant lawsuit was filed not only by 90 days after the date on which the administrative agency became aware of the disposition, etc., but also by 1 year after the date on

B. Next, the Plaintiff appears to have sought payment of KRW 100 million (or KRW 145 million) to the Defendant in light of the facts alleged as the cause of the claim against the Defendant in relation to the part seeking compensation for economic and mental damage. However, even if the Plaintiff was served on September 24, 2015 by this court, the fact that the Plaintiff did not revise the stamp within the period specified in the above order of correction is obvious to this court, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. As such, the Plaintiff’s respective lawsuits of this case are unlawful, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.