1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea and an application for change of status - Entry: Vietnam - Entry on November 4, 2015 (Status of stay: E7-1, expiration date November 4, 2016): - An application for change of status of stay: The Plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea as other status of stay (G1-4) on the grounds of dispute over wage payment from May 31, 2016 to August 30, 2016, and filed an application for a specific status of stay (E7-1) with the Defendant on August 17, 2016.

B. Non-permission decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”), such as extension of the period of stay for the Defendant on January 3, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), - Facts that there exists no dispute as to the ground for recognition, such as failure to meet the requirements for employment enterprises, etc., 【No dispute as to the ground for recognition, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition, which denied the extension of the period of stay due to the Plaintiff’s assertion of employment company’s failure to meet the requirements, etc., was unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) In light of the language, content, form, system, etc. of Article 10 and Article 24(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 12 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, permission to change the status of stay has the nature of a sort of permanent measure that grants the applicant the right to engage in activities that are different from the original status of stay, and thus, even if the applicant satisfies the requirements prescribed by the relevant statutes, the permitting authority shall have discretion to decide whether to grant the permission by taking into account the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of stay, impact on the public interest, etc. However, if there is a serious error in the fact-finding that was the basis of the determination at the time of exercising such discretion, or if there are reasons such as violating the principle of proportionality and equality or significantly lose validity under the social norms, it is unlawful as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4846, Jul. 14, 2016). 2)