The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the following parts, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court of first instance, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, is justifiable, even if the Plaintiff appealed and the evidence submitted by the court was examined in both of the first instance court and this court, is not significantly different from the Plaintiff’s assertion.

The 8th page 4 of the first instance judgment "No. 2-2" shall be regarded as "No. 2-2".

B. Article 12 [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “Attachment 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case”) of the first instance judgment 6 pages 14 and 15 shall be deemed to be “attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case.”

C. On the 7th page of the first instance judgment, the 5th page “foreign investment” in the 7th page of the first instance judgment is “foreign-invested company”, and the 5 through 6th page of the same part is either constituted or “in fact,” respectively.

The 8th page 2 of the first instance judgment "Bnak" is raised into "Bank".

E. The 4th parallel of the first instance judgment’s 9th parallel of the 19th parallel of “sub-story” is considered as “sub-story”.

F. The 11th page 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance is considered to be “operating”.

G. At the bottom of the 11th instance judgment, the following parts shall be added between 2 and 1:

x. The Plaintiff has a practice that widely grants the status of stay for corporate investment (D-8) to the “investment company that establishes and operates a foreign-capital invested company by investing more than KRW 100 million.” The scope of the scope of the visa issuance in the Internet bulletin board of the “Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA)” established within the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) is stated as above. This is against the public opinion expressed by the administrative agency, denying the change of the status of stay against the Plaintiff is the principle of trust protection.