1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a foreigner of the People’s Republic of China’s nationality, entered on June 30, 2006 with a visa for visit (F-1), and left Korea on June 28, 2009 with the expiration of the period of stay, left Korea on June 28, 2009, and re-issuance of a visa for employment (H-2). On August 23, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for a change of the status of stay to the Defendant’s permanent residence (F-5) qualification on June 10, 2014.

B. In the process of examining the Plaintiff’s application for change of status of stay, the Defendant: (a) entered the Plaintiff with a visa for industrial technology training (D3) using a name passport issued on February 19, 1998 (B and C; and (b) reported the illegal stay on August 31, 2005; and (c) confirmed the fact that the Defendant voluntarily left the Republic of Korea upon receiving an order for departure order with the content that the issuance of visa is regulated for one year.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a departure order to the Plaintiff on May 29, 2015, as prescribed by Articles 46 and 68(1) of the Immigration Control Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 7(1) of the same Act, and rendered a non-permission decision on June 10, 2015, including extension of sojourn period.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The order of departure of this case is unlawful due to procedural defects, such as not giving prior notice to the plaintiff. The decision of refusing the plaintiff's extension of sojourn period against the plaintiff was made first and later by the order of departure, and its procedural defects are found. 2) The plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea before 17 years and entered the Republic of Korea in another person's name, but it is currently being granted the status of stay under this name and is staying normally, and thus does not fall under Article 7 (1) of the Immigration Control Act. Although the plaintiff's act of entering the Republic of Korea 17 years ago falls under Article 7 (1) of the Immigration Control Act, there is considerable possibility of criticism against the plaintiff, in light of the fact that 17 years have passed since