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

On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, and entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay for general training (D-4).

On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to extend the period of stay (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on January 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to allow the Plaintiff to extend the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition” without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleading as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff asserted that all of the plaintiff deposited money in the passbook of the bank in Mongolia and used necessary expenses with the check card.

Therefore, the plaintiff has sufficient financial capacity.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful as it misleads the factual basis or deviatess from discretionary power.

Judgment

1. 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 his/her sojourn in excess of the status of sojourn, the foreigner shall obtain the permission to change his/her status of sojourn from the Minister of Justice; and if the foreigner intends to continue his/her sojourn 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 his/her status

In addition, immigration administration is.