1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Paragraph (1) shall apply to the grounds for a judgment in the first instance;

Therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s defense of this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff had already been married with Korean spouse, and the marriage immigration (F-6) was rejected and voluntarily left the Republic of Korea, there is no legal interest to seek extension of the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6).

B. Since a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to its original state by excluding an illegal state caused by an illegal disposition, and protecting or remedying the rights and interests infringed or obstructed by such disposition, it is theoretical sense to dispute the illegality of a certain administrative disposition, but there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking the cancellation if there is no practical utility or benefit to be resolved by a trial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Du12284 Decided May 12, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1638 Decided June 10, 2016, etc.).

Judgment

According to the evidence No. 11, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition against which the extension of the period of stay was not permitted due to the lack of authenticity of marriage with B, etc., and the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on February 20, 2018 when filing an appeal after losing the first instance court, and entered the Republic of Korea on March 14, 2018 and obtained a new status of stay (C-3) called short-term visit (C-3).

As recognized earlier, the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit was recognized as having the authenticity of marriage with B and was intended to legally stay in the Republic of Korea with the status of stay of marriage immigration (F-6) as the spouse B’s spouse. As such, the Plaintiff entered the instant lawsuit after departure from the Republic of Korea and re-entry.