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 27, 2012, the Plaintiff, a Vietnam national, entered into the status of stay for a short-term visit (C-3) on a short-term basis, and invested KRW 100 million in “B stock company” (hereinafter “instant company”), and obtained a change of status of stay on October 22, 2012 as the status of stay for corporate investment (D-8), and obtained permission for extension of the period of stay five times thereafter.

B. On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant. However, on February 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition denying the extension of the period of stay on the ground that “the extension of the period of stay for corporate investment does not meet the requirements for extension of the period of stay” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on February 20, 2017, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on September 18, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the status of stay for corporate investment (D-8-1) is granted to a foreign-capital invested company who is an investor in the foreign-capital invested company and is qualified for such company’s “essential professional human resources.” The instant company is a Korean company that has completed the registration of a foreign-capital invested company and has completed the registration of a foreign-capital invested company, that sells food directly imported from Vietnam online, that is, Vietnam-Korean language translation and cleaning service contract, and the Plaintiff plays an essential role in leading the company as well as C, the representative of the instant company.

Therefore, it is unlawful that the Plaintiff denied the Plaintiff’s application for extension of the period of sojourn on the ground that the Defendant does not meet the requirements for the extension of the period of sojourn for corporate investment status even though it is apparent that the Plaintiff satisfied

In addition, the company of this case is entering the current stage of stabilizing the business, and this case.