1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 2015, Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) foreigner with the nationality of Mongolian country, but filed an application for permission to change the status of stay on February 3, 2016, on the ground that CK would have received training in Korean language, and changed the status of stay to a general training (D-4).

B. On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff B, the husband of Plaintiff 1, also a foreigner of Mongolian nationality (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2.”) entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit sojourn status on April 14, 2016, but changed the status of stay on June 15, 2016 to a dependent (F-3, a principal agent: Plaintiff 1.).

C. After that, the Plaintiffs had been staying in the Republic of Korea with the permission for extension of the period of sojourn under each of the above sojourn status (referring to the “permission for extension of the period of sojourn No. 1 and 2” according to the following table) as listed below (Plaintiff 1.). On September 2016, 2017, Plaintiff 1. (General Training) on July 28, 2016, the expiration date of the permission date on the date of application for extension of the period of sojourn, which was July 28, 2016, on July 28, 2016, 2017, when the permission date expires.

On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs again filed an application for extension of the period of stay with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant rendered a decision on May 19, 2017 on the refusal of each extension of the period of stay on the ground that Plaintiff 2, on the ground that Plaintiff 1 was not able to grant the extension of the period of stay for the subject of stay on the ground that Plaintiff 2, a lack of financial documentation, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as "each plaintiff or group of plaintiffs") of this case. (e)

On June 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims for administrative appeal on February 6, 2018.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 7 through 11, and Eul's 1, 2, and 3.