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

A. On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, a Mongolian national, entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis, and the Plaintiff’s spouse B obtained the status of stay as a accompanying (F-3) sojourn status on the ground that the Plaintiff’s spouse B was in the Republic of Korea as a Korean language training (D-41) sojourn status, and on February 2, 2018, the period of stay expires, and the Plaintiff’s spouse applied for the change of the status of stay to D-23 (HH). The Plaintiff applied for the extension of

B. However, on April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff’s spouse was subject to a disposition not to grant the extension of the period of stay, etc. on grounds of failure to clarify the source of balance and a sudden change in the balance on the balance certificate submitted at the time of filing an application for change of the above status of stay. The Plaintiff is also eligible for status of stay attached to the Plaintiff’s spouse’s status of stay, and the Plaintiff was also subject to a disposition not to grant the extension of the period of stay and to notify departure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) from the Defendant on May 3, 2018.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Plaintiff was rendered a dismissal ruling on September 11, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s spouse B paid a enrollment fee to the C University Language Academy at the time of February 2018, and received a remittance in Mongolia, despite the lack of financial capacity, it is unlawful to impose a disposition of refusing to extend the period of stay in Mongolia, etc. on the Plaintiff on the ground that the disposition of refusing to file an application for stay in the Republic of Korea by an illegal principal agent is illegal. However, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case on the ground that the application for stay in the Republic of Korea by the illegal principal agent was denied and abused by discretion. (C) Articles 10(1), 24(1), and 25 of the Immigration Control Act are illegal.