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 reported marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on June 22, 2007, and pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 on November 1, 201, the Plaintiff constitutes Article 12 [Attachment 1] 28-4. Marriage (F-6-A) under Article 12 [Attachment 1] 28-4.

The status of stay has been extended five times by entry into the Republic of Korea (til January 28, 2014) and has been staying in the Republic of Korea.

B. Around August 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a divorce against B, and the said lawsuit (U.S. District Court Branch 2013Ddan902) was proceeding by public notice to B, and on November 26, 2013, the judgment was rendered that “the Plaintiff and B shall divorce. B shall pay consolation money of KRW 3 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.”

C. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of stay, alleging that the marriage was severed due to a cause not attributable to the principal.

(hereinafter “instant application.” The Defendant rejected the instant application on September 23, 2014 on the ground of “the fact-finding survey with respect to the Plaintiff, which was conducted on September 23, 2014, for the reason that the former spouse was not genuine, and that there was no apparent reason for the former spouse’s failure to engage in conduct

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been married with B, but the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit by determining that it is no longer difficult to maintain the marriage relationship due to the departure from home and economic problems, etc. of B, and that the divorce is declared due to the judgment that the divorce is attributable to B. As such, the Plaintiff was divorced due to the cause attributable to B, and thus, the instant disposition of the instant case on a different premise is unlawful, even though the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) can be maintained due to the cause attributable to B.

In addition, the instant disposition is without giving prior notice to the Plaintiff or giving an opportunity to present opinions.