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

In other words, on June 11, 2015, entry into the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status, and stay after obtaining permission for change of sojourn status on June 23, 2015 (D-10).

On June 17, 2016, the plaintiff was employed in the decision-making partnershipB, and applied for a change of status of stay to the defendant as a specific activity (E-7) status.

On February 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny the Plaintiff’s application due to “illegal employment, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was employed to engage in import and export interpretation activities in Mongolia for up to two months in the Plaintiff-B (hereinafter “B”).

The disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power, because the defendant was not allowed to apply for change of the plaintiff's status of stay because of the defendant's illegal employment.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

(c) Comprehensively taking account of Articles 10(1), 24(1), and 25 of the Immigration Control Act, a foreigner may stay only within the scope of his/her original status and sojourn period recognized at the time of entry, and if the foreigner needs to stay in the Republic of Korea, he/she shall undergo the procedure of re-entry after departure, and only in exceptional cases, he/she may stay in the Republic of Korea after obtaining permission to change his/her status of sojourn or permission to extend his/her period of sojourn after undergoing a strict examination.

Articles 10 and 24 (1) of the Immigration Control Act, etc.