1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The circumstances leading up to the decision not to grant the extension of the period of stay ① The plaintiff was a second-born female of the People’s Republic of China’s Republic of China’s nationality, completed a marriage report with C (D-2) who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea on January 31, 207, and on September 6, 2007, the status of stay was granted to the spouse of the citizen of the status of stay (F-2) but the revised Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 2011; effective December 15, 2011) newly established the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) pursuant to the previous provisions, a person who has the status of stay for residence (F-2) equivalent to the spouse of the citizen pursuant to the amended Enforcement Decree is considered to have the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) pursuant to the F-6).

(Article 3 (2) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Amendment (Article 3 (2) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Amendment). The first entry into Korea on October 13, 2007.

② After the extension of the period of stay on May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff obtained the extension of the period of stay on May 21, 2018 (the expiration date July 13, 2020), and subsequently, consulted with C on November 22, 2018.

③ On February 15, 2019, after completing a marriage report with E (FF male) who is a national of the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of stay with the Defendant on May 17, 2019, for extension of the period of stay on the grounds of marriage with E, and the said application was revoked on the wind detained in the criminal case on May 18, 2019.

④ After that, on January 15, 2020, E was released from the detention center in Seoul Eastern District on the expiration of the period of punishment. On January 20, 2020, the Plaintiff again filed an application for extension of the period of stay with the Defendant on the ground of marriage with E. On June 12, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff was not genuine to marriage, etc.” against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is living together with his/her spouse E and is living together with the other spouse's female and his/her family members, and is living in a convalescent hospital.