1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a Chinese national, completed the marriage report with B on December 24, 2008, and entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay (F-2) on September 1, 2009.

B. On July 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce against B (U.S. District Court Branch 2010ddan7034), and the conciliation was concluded on November 18, 2010 that “the Plaintiff and B shall divorce by reasons attributable to B”.

C. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted status of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6) and applied for extension of the period of stay to the Defendant on four occasions. On August 5, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff to deny the said application for other reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion of mistake 1) Since the plaintiff was economically able to marry with B while living a normal marital life with B, and was divorced by verbal abuse and assault against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is therefore subject to attached Table 128 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act.

4. It shall be construed as “a person who cannot maintain a normal matrimonial relationship due to reasons not attributable to himself or herself” provided for in item (c) of sojourn status of a marriage immigrants (F-6);

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which did not extend the period of sojourn of the plaintiff, is unlawful as it deviates from or abused discretion by misunderstanding facts.

2) In violation of the principle of trust protection, the Defendant expressed a public view that the Plaintiff’s status of stay is recognized by extending the status of stay to the Plaintiff’s marriage immigrants (F-6) on four occasions, and the Plaintiff believed it and formed a basis of living in Korea. However, without any change in circumstances, the Defendant did not change.