1. The disposition of denying the extension of sojourn period, etc. made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 18, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On November 29, 2007, while entering the Republic of Korea as the sojourn status of Visit and employment (H-2), the Plaintiff reported a marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on December 26, 2008. Accordingly, on July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff changed the status of stay to the status of stay (before the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201, the spouse of the citizen was eligible for the status of stay of residence (H-2) but the spouse of the citizen was subject to the status of stay of marriage (mark F-6) upon the amendment of the Enforcement Decree as above).

On July 201, the Plaintiff violated the Medical Service Act by performing massage operations against Japanese tourists without obtaining a Madice’s license, and accordingly, was decided by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on December 29, 201 to suspend indictment.

On September 2011, the Plaintiff filed a divorce suit against B with the Incheon District Court 2011ddan1980.

On November 29, 2011, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation to the Plaintiff and B to the effect that “the Plaintiff and B shall divorce, and B shall pay consolation money of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff.” The Plaintiff and B did not object to the said ruling of recommending reconciliation, which became final and conclusive on February 1, 2012.

On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant on the same status of stay (e.g., marriage immigration (F-6) and was extended until February 27, 2014.

On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the extension of the period of stay with the Defendant of the other party, and the Defendant denied the extension of the period of stay of the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks the authenticity of marriage with the Plaintiff B, and that it is unclear whether the said marriage was dissolved due to B’s fault (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Based on the recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is genuinely married with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea, as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and Nos. 5, and the purport of the entire argument.