1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case are stated are as follows. ① Article 2-3 (3) (2) of the judgment of the first instance as follows. ② The reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case are stated are as follows: (3) of the judgment of the first instance, except for deletion of paragraph (3) (4) of the judgment of the first instance as to this case.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judgment

(1) According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff submitted the instant certificate of kinship in order to prove that he/she constitutes a foreign nationality Korean under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans when he/she applied for a change of his/her status of stay to a permanent resident qualification on November 27, 2012, and (2) the Defendant requested identification of the authenticity of the instant certificate of kinship; and (3) the Defendant discovered the circumstances in which part of the entries are deemed to have been altered as a result of identification.

(2) However, although it was not objectively clearly revealed whether the Plaintiff participated in the alteration of the instant certificate of kinship, it is legitimate to deny the Defendant’s application for permission to change the Plaintiff’s sojourn status on the ground that the Plaintiff’s bodily behavior is not good, considering the following circumstances.

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the travel agency near the residence delegated the application for permission to change the status of stay, and that it was entirely unaware of the fact that the instant certificate of kinship was altered.

However, there is no objective evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff did not have any reason to alter the instant certificate of kinship.

Rather, the certificate of kinship of this case is the name, date, and date of birth of the plaintiff's parent and husband.