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 May 20, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on May 20, 2005. On November 9, 2005, Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 12 (Attached Table 1 attached hereto) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201).

Pursuant to the item, the status of stay (F-2) as a "spouse of a national" (F-6) [the current Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act) entry into the Republic of Korea after obtaining the status of stay (F-6) from a spouse of a married immigration (F-6) under the current Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act) shall be granted the status of stay as prescribed in [Attachment Table 1] of Article 12 [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201). According to Article 12 [Attachment Table 1] of the current Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, the status of stay as a "spouse of a national" (F-2) is granted, and the spouse of a married immigration (F-6) is granted the status

B. On August 5, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6). On November 17, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to permit the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was “actually inappropriate, etc.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff completed the marriage report with B in 2005 and entered the Republic of Korea, and has been harming the real marital life with B until now. The disposition of this case on different premise is based on misunderstanding of facts, and is in violation of the abuse of discretionary power.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff was divorced in around 2004 by having his child D (198) and E (1993) between the former and the former and the latter and the latter, the latter and the F (2).