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

A. On September 27, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China") and stayed in the Republic of Korea.

B. After marriage with B on August 2, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for a change of status of stay on September 20, 201, and obtained the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) on March 13, 2012.

C. On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the sojourn period thereafter, but the Defendant rendered a decision of nonpermission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the lack of authenticity of marriage and the uncertainty of the spouse’s cause attributable to the spouse, etc.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion maintains a genuine marital life with his spouse B, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is deemed to have been erroneous or abused its discretionary power.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The immigration control administration 1 is the state administrative action aimed at promoting the national interest and safety by properly controlling and coordinating the entry and departure of foreigners into and departure from the Republic of Korea and foreigners. In particular, matters concerning the stay of foreigners in the Republic of Korea should be strictly controlled because it is essential to carry out the functions as a sovereign state.

In light of the purpose and purport of such immigration control administration and the legislative form, structure, and language and text of the pertinent statutes, permission for change of foreigner’s status of stay has the nature of a sort of permanent disposition that grants the applicant the right to engage in activities that are different from the original status of stay, and the permitting authority has broad discretion to determine whether to grant the permission, taking into account the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of stay, impact on public interest, etc.