1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 13, 2005, the Plaintiff, a national of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (hereinafter “Vietnam”), completed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on June 13, 2005, and entered the Republic of Korea on August 14, 2005, and obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on August 7, 2012, upon obtaining permission for extension of the period of stay from the Republic of Korea. Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act and Article 12 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 28-4(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, obtained permission for extension of the period of stay for marriage immigration (F-6(c).

B. On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming divorce and consolation money against B with the Cheongju District Court.

On July 19, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the plaintiff and B are divorced, and the plaintiff shall pay 5 million won as consolation money and damages for delay to the plaintiff,” deeming that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and B was broken down due to the main liability of B as the main liability of B. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter the instant case is referred to as “Divorce”). C.

Around that time, the Plaintiff cannot maintain a matrimonial relationship with B due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself. Around that time, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of stay with the Defendant as the status of stay for married immigrants [a person who is unable to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself while staying in the Republic of Korea under the state of marriage with his/her spouse, who is a national, and recognized by the Minister of Justice (F-6 (c)]; and

On December 11, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the extension of the period of stay against the Plaintiff on the ground of “the authenticity of marriage, lack of stay inevitable, lack of proof of the spouse’s fault, etc.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition of the instant disposition” is the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s No. 1, 2, and 3.