1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff, as a Korean national of the People's Republic of China, entered the Republic of Korea as an industrial trainee (D-3-1) on January 21, 1998, but went away from the place of work, and was forced to stay on December 7, 2003, and entered the country as a qualification for visiting employment (H-2) on January 17, 2010 and extended the period of stay every year.

B. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a person subject to simplified naturalization, filed an application for change of status of stay with the Defendant as a permanent resident (F-5), but the Defendant, on August 13, 2015, notified the Defendant of the departure from the Republic of Korea by August 27, 2015 pursuant to Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act without permission for change of status of stay for reasons, such as “eficial situation,” etc. (the instant disposition is conducted under the following).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6, Eul evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B is a person who has held the nationality of the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff has been staying in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years, and thus constitutes a person subject to application for simplified naturalization, and even if the Plaintiff’s wife, consciousness, and siblings are currently living in the Republic of Korea, and have lived faithfully without doing any criminal act after drinking driving on September 4, 2010, the instant disposition for which the decision to deny the change of status of stay was made without considering the circumstances leading to drinking driving at the time of September 4, 2010 or the circumstances leading up to drinking or illegal stay, and the driving distance, etc., and without considering specific reasons, the instant disposition for which the decision to deny the change of status of stay was made is unlawful as it deviates

B. (1) Determination is that the status of permanent residence that the Plaintiff intended to acquire through an application for change of the status of stay is not restricted in employment activities while staying in the Republic of Korea (see Article 23(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Act), and (2) grounds for issuing a deportation order compared to other status of stay.