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

A. On August 13, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on August 26, 2017, and subsequently filed an application for change of the status of sojourn for visiting and accompanying (F-1) to support childcare for children of Liman C married with a Korean national on November 13, 2017.

B. Accordingly, on November 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) as the mother of C on November 16, 2017, the Defendant: (b) as the mother of C in 1962, there are no special circumstances to deem it difficult to support C’s childcare; and (c) as the mother of C in 1962, the Defendant is

A decision not to grant an application for change of status of stay was made on the ground that the case does not constitute a case, such as extension of the period of stay (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), and notified the Plaintiff of departure.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on February 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that C, who is the Plaintiff, has a 20-month child, needs to assist the fostering of the child, and the mother-child D, as well as the family, should be responsible for the livelihood of the family. As such, the Plaintiff was only the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea and applied for the change of the status of stay for visiting and stopping.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that rejected an application for change of status of stay without considering such circumstances is unlawful.

B. Since permission to change status of stay has the nature of a sort of permanent disposition that grants the applicant the right to engage in activities that correspond to the original status of stay and other status of stay, the permitting authority shall have the discretion to decide whether to grant permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of stay, impact on the public interest, etc., even if the applicant satisfies the requirements prescribed by the relevant statutes.