1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is a male with the Republic of Korea’s nationality, and the Plaintiff entered the first place of non-professional employment (E-9) on September 8, 201, and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Administrator of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Local Employment and Labor Agency on October 27, 2014 to revoke a non-permission to change the place of business. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Administrator of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Employment and Labor Agency for revocation of a non-permission to change the place of business, and the first and second instances lost against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed a written appeal on March 29, 2016, but the judgment against the dismissal of the appeal dismissed on July 27, 201

(U) The Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu6563 Decided October 20, 2015, Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu66501 Decided March 24, 2016, Supreme Court Decision 2015Nu66501 Decided March 24, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Du37027 Decided July 27, 2016, changed the status of stay into the status of stay (G-1) on the ground that it is still pending.

B. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff applied to the Defendant for extension of the sojourn period for other (G-1) sojourn status. However, on May 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission to extend the sojourn period on the ground that “after filing an application for extension of the sojourn period for the Plaintiff on March 29, 2016, contact details, sending a summons, and making a public notice of a request for attendance after filing a request for extension of

On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the above disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. On January 17, 2017, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling revoking the above disposition on the following grounds.

According to Article 94-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, if an applicant fails to present himself/herself and state his/her opinion in accordance with the notification under Article 89(3) of the same Act, the respondent is deemed to have no opinion. Thus, if an applicant who has applied for extension of sojourn does not comply with the request for attendance, the respondent shall be deemed to have no opinion, and if the applicant does not comply with the request for attendance, and shall examine whether the applicant satisfies the requirements for sojourn status under the Immigration Control Act on the basis of documents