2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. C (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) who is a foreigner of the Pakistanan nationality, entered the Republic of Korea on March 30, 201 as the status of stay for religion (D-6) (D-6), and the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) who is a foreigner of the same Pakistanan nationality as his/her spouse, entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay for accompanying (F-3) of his/her spouse on the same day.

Plaintiff

Husband and wife had been staying in the Republic of Korea due to study and accompanying sojourn status even before entering the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) was granted the status of stay of her husband and wife (F-3) in the Republic of Korea on the D date.

B. After that, the Plaintiffs and the Nonparty were living together in the Republic of Korea after obtaining permission for extension of the period of continuous stay. On July 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs and the Nonparty, who were staying in the Republic of Korea due to the Non-Party’s status of stay (F-3) was unable to obtain the permission for extension of the period of stay any longer, by disclosing that they were not willing to enter the Republic of Korea within the permitted period of stay.

C. Accordingly, on July 10, 2018, Plaintiff 2 applied for the change of each status of stay to the Defendant on July 10, 2018, and Plaintiff 1 applied for the change of each status of stay to the status of general training (D-4-3) granted to foreign students below high school, and Plaintiff 1 applied for each status of stay (F-1-13).

On August 22, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on August 22, 2018 that rejected the change of each status of stay on the ground of the Plaintiff 1’s failure to meet the requirements for qualification (e.g., failure to meet the requirements for deposit for at least one month, failure to meet the requirements for deposit) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed all of the Plaintiffs’ claims for administrative appeal on March 19, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition]