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 November 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status around November 22, 2015, and obtained permission for change (D-4 on July 20, 2016) of sojourn status on January 25, 2016. The Plaintiff obtained permission for change of sojourn status (D-4 on July 20, 2016) on July 12, 2016.

B. On January 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant application”) around January 18, 2017 while staying in the Korea Institute of International Language in Guro-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant language institute”).

C. On April 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the Plaintiff’s instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff believed that the certificate of attendance issued by the fish teaching institute of this case was genuine and submitted to the Defendant. Even if the above documents were false, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff submitted it to the Defendant for the purpose of deceiving the Defendant. Although the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit sojourn status, the Plaintiff applied for a change of the status of stay for general training in order to acquire a computer-based degree by entering the university after having received language and cultural education within the Republic of Korea, and thereafter, the Defendant permitted the change of the status of stay for general training, and thus, the Plaintiff

Therefore, the disposition of this case by the defendant merely because the plaintiff's attendance rate does not reach 70% is against the plaintiff's above trust, and the plaintiff is financially financially financially required to receive training from his family members in Mongolia and their family members in Mongolia.