1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in the trial of the party, the defendant's entry into the country of short-term visit visa (C-3) has changed the status of stay to a general training visa (D-4) based on the training of curriculum, the plaintiff should also be subject to such disposition, and if not, the plaintiff will incur a lot of personal damage to the plaintiff.

The immigration control administration is the state administrative action that aims to promote the interest and safety of the nation by properly controlling and coordinating the entry and departure of foreigners in the Republic of Korea. In particular, it is essential to carry out the functions as a sovereign state, so it is necessary to strictly control the immigration control administration.

As stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited earlier, the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act Article 9(1)1(c) of the Enforcement Rule.

In case of issuing a visa to a person subject to short-term visit (C-3) for a period of less than 90 days, the applicant shall be informed of the fact that no change of status of stay is permitted after entry, and the same purport is stated at the end of the application for visa issuance in accordance with the above provision.

Even if there is a case of permitting the change of sojourn status for foreigners who entered the short-term visit visa as asserted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that there is a legitimate trust that permits the change of sojourn status to the Plaintiff solely on such circumstance.

Considering the Plaintiff’s refusal to issue a visa, the instant disposition denying the change of status of stay against the Plaintiff is lawful.