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 July 26, 2005, the Plaintiff married with B, who is a national of the Republic of Korea on July 26, 2005, and entered the Republic of Korea on February 29, 2008, and completed the foreigner registration on March 19, 2008.

B. On September 18, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against B on April 6, 2009 and brought a divorce on April 6, 2009, and subsequently amended the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (Presidential Decree No. 23274) on November 1, 201, the spouse status of a national of the Republic of Korea changed from “F-2-1” to “F-6-3.” As a matter of qualification, the Plaintiff continued to stay after having extended the period of stay and continued to stay on October 2, 2015, on the ground that the head of the branch office “the lack of the divorce certificate due to the former spouse’s causes” was denied from the head of the branch office in the Seoul Immigration Office as of March 2, 2015.

C. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff changed the Defendant’s domicile to the jurisdiction on October 13, 2015, and applied for a change in the status of stay to the Defendant as a domestic organization (F-1-6) capacity on the 14th of the same month based on the written complaint for the claim for confirmation of nullity, etc. of divorce filed on October 12, 2015. However, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition on November 3, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not change the status of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 24, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, entry B in 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority or abuse of the defendant's disposition of this case, even though the plaintiff filed an application for change of status of sojourn status of visiting and stopping (F-1) due to inevitable circumstances such as recovery of deposit under the lease agreement entered into in the name of the land.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination 1. Articles 10(1) and 24(1) of the Immigration Control Act, and the Immigration Control Act.