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

A. On July 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on July 20, 2010, and entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay of “Marriage” (the spouse of a national and F-6-1) (the spouse of a national) in the Republic of Korea on August 11, 2010.

B. On September 18, 2015, after having been staying in the Republic of Korea after having been divorced from B on September 19, 2015, the Plaintiff changed the status of stay on August 19, 2016 to “house-to-house stay” (on February 11, 2017), and was extended once on February 9, 2017.

(Date of Termination: April 11, 2017). (C)

On March 24, 2017, before the expiration date of the period of stay for the plaintiff's visit and movement, the registration of incorporation of the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "C") was completed, and the plaintiff was registered as the representative director in the corporate register.

On April 11, 2017, the expiration date of the period of stay for visiting and stopping, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff constitutes a foreign-invested enterprise under the Foreign Investment Promotion Act, and applied for the alteration of the status of stay to “corporate investment” (D-8).

E. However, on April 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to change the status of stay on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for corporate investment status.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case." The defendant prepared the above disposition (Evidence A No. 1) using the attached Form No. 43-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, instead of the "written decision not to permit the change of status of stay", which means the "written decision not to permit the extension of stay period, etc.", but because the grounds for refusal include "other reasons such as the requirements not to permit the change of status of stay" in the column for refusal, it is deemed that a disposition

F. On April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the request for administrative appeal on February 6, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition]