1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On May 14, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a pure tourism (C-3) foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), and completed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on June 19, 2009, and obtained permission for change of the status of stay on January 19, 2010 (F-2).

B A lawsuit claiming a divorce against the Plaintiff on November 29, 2012 (Seoul Family Court 2012ddan 99801) filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff to claim a divorce and consolation money against B on April 8, 2013 (the Seoul Family Court 2012ddan 99801), and the said lawsuit was divorced on August 30, 2013 (the Plaintiff and B shall be liable for the divorce between the Plaintiff and B, but the Plaintiff shall be paid consolation money of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff, and both parties shall not claim against the other party for any monetary claim, such as consolation money and division of property, etc.

(hereinafter “instant divorce”). After November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of stay with the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6).

However, on January 28, 2014, the Defendant rejected the extension of the period of stay on the grounds of “the lack of authenticity of the marriage and the uncertainty of the cause attributable to his/her spouse” and rendered a disposition to leave the Republic of Korea by February 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on February 3, 2014, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 17, 2014.

【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap's 2 (including each number), 5, 6, 8, Eul's each statement, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the overall purport of the pleading, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff alleged that the disposition of this case was legitimate for three years after he married with Eul, but it led to divorce by verbal abuse with Eul's external intent.

Nevertheless, the defendant lacks the authenticity of marriage between the plaintiff and B.

for reasons attributable to or against B.