1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff of the key issue of the instant case applied for extension of sojourn period on the grounds that the Defendant, on July 30, 2015, rejected the said application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the cause attributable to the spouse related to divorce is unclear.

The key issue of this case is whether the reason attributable to the spouse in relation to the plaintiff's divorce is unclear, or whether the disposition of this case is an abuse of discretion.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance provides that Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that “A foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea shall have the status of stay prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 25 of the same Act provides that “A foreigner who intends to continue to stay in excess of the period of stay shall obtain permission for extension of the period of stay from the Minister of Justice before the period of stay expires, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Accordingly, Article 12 and [Attachment 1] 28-4(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “A foreigner who is married to his/her spouse” as one of the requirements for the status of stay for marriage of a woman (F-6) among the status of stay of a foreigner under Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act, “a person who is unable to maintain a normal marital relationship due to the death or disappearance of his/her spouse while staying in the Republic of Korea with his/her spouse, or other reasons not attributable to him/her, who is recognized by the Minister of Justice.”