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 January 10, 2004, the Plaintiff reported to the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), and entered into the status of stay as the spouse (F-2, current, F-6) of the citizen on April 6, 2004.

B. On October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against B with the Seoul Family Court Decision 2011Ddan91671, and on March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff and B divorced with the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive on March 30, 2012, with the effect that “B is divorced due to the mistake of the Plaintiff and B” between the Plaintiff and B.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for permission for naturalization on September 4, 2012 and applied for permission for extension of sojourn period (F-6) to the Seoul Immigration Office on September 11, 2014, but the Seoul Immigration Office rejected the extension of sojourn period on November 19, 2014 on the ground that “the authenticity of marriage is insufficient.”

On the same day, the plaintiff applied for permission of change of status to visit the Seoul Immigration Office for naturalization (F-1) on the same day.

E. On December 17, 2014, the Defendant, upon which the above application was transferred by the Seoul Immigration Office, rendered a decision not to allow the alteration of the Plaintiff’s sojourn status, such as the extension of sojourn period, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she could obtain permission for naturalization. On December 7, 2014, the Plaintiff registered the laundry technology with a private teaching institute in order to cultivate laundry technology. The Plaintiff, a Chinese national, entered Korea, and entered Korea from 2015 to the Reduced University.

Therefore, the instant disposition that denied the change of status of stay and ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea is unlawful since it violates the principle of proportionality, thereby abusing discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Article 24(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 12 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.