1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s extension of sojourn period, etc. against the Plaintiff on August 25, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a woman of Mongolian nationality, married with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on January 7, 2010.

On June 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay (F-2) on June 5, 201, and was married with B as a citizen of the Republic of Korea on May 21, 2012, and stayed with B on August 30, 2016.

B. On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with C who is a national of the Republic of Korea, and applied for extension of the period of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) to the Defendant on June 2, 2017 on the ground of the report.

C. On August 8, 2017, the Defendant conducted a fact-finding survey by visiting the Plaintiff’s domicile, etc., and on August 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to allow the Plaintiff to extend the period of stay, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. On May 15, 2018, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “Although the Defendant’s determination that the Plaintiff did not meet income requirements among the grounds for the disposition of the instant case was based on mistake of facts, it cannot be said that the determination that the marriage authenticity was lacking was erroneous.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is married with C in genuine intent, and C's income, which is the plaintiff's spouse, satisfies the requirements prescribed in the relevant regulations.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

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

C. 1) Determination 1) In a case where an administrative agency issues a rejection disposition against a foreigner applying for status of stay for the F-6 (c) on the grounds that the foreigner failed to meet the requirements, the “determination that the foreigner failed to meet the requirements” itself.