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 February 20, 2007 and May 30, 2007, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, was denied entry into the Republic of Korea on the grounds of unclear entry purpose, and entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term comprehensive (C-3) sojourn status on October 19, 2007, and the period of stay expires (C-3 January 17, 2008) and left the Republic of Korea on December 19, 2010 while the Plaintiff was staying illegal stay.

B. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on June 14, 2015, and entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on April 17, 2016, and applied for a change of sojourn status to the Defendant on June 3, 2016 as a general training (D-4) sojourn status.

C. On July 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-permission decision on July 1, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff is subject to the restriction on qualification change under Article 9(1)1(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, “the previous illegal stay, and uncertainty of academic purpose” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1-1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4-1, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she applied for permission to change the status of stay after entering the Korea Language Institute for the Korean Language Institute.

Considering that there was no fact that the Plaintiff was notified of the fact that the status of stay was not changed at the time of the initial visa issuance, that considering the disposition of this case’s illegal stay does not fit the administrative purpose, and that the reason that the purpose of study is unclear is unreasonable due to lack of objectivity, etc., the disposition of this case is unlawful by infringing the Plaintiff’s private interest without any reason or by excessively infringing the Plaintiff’s private interest without public interest.

B.1 Determinations 1 Articles 10, 12(1), 12(3)2, 4, and 12(4) of the Immigration Control Act.