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

A. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”).

B. The Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay on September 28, 2016, but the Defendant rendered a non-permission decision on October 9, 2016 on the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, despite its financial capacity, is an abuse of discretionary power, inasmuch as the Plaintiff continues to have been engaged in fish academic training in Korea and the parents have raised school expenses and living expenses with money remitted in China.

B. Articles 10(1), 24(1), and 25 of the Immigration Control Act provide that a foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea shall obtain the status of sojourn prescribed by Presidential Decree; a foreigner who intends to stay in the Republic of Korea shall obtain the permission to change his/her status of sojourn in advance; if the foreigner intends to continue to stay in excess of the period of sojourn, the foreigner shall obtain the permission to extend the period of sojourn from the Minister of Justice before the period of sojourn expires, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Thus, the foreigner may stay only within the scope of the status of sojourn recognized at the time of initial entry and the period of sojourn; if the foreigner needs to continue his/her stay in the Republic of Korea, he/she shall obtain the permission to change his/her status of sojourn or the

In addition, immigration control administration is appropriate for entry into and departure from Korea and foreigners.