1. The part of the claim for permission to extend the period of sojourn among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 6, 199, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (or a foreigner of the People's Republic of China), and entered the Republic of Korea as an industrial training (D-3) on January 11, 200, but returned on February 5, 2004, and left the Republic of Korea on August 6, 2006.

Since September 13, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) on September 4, 2010, and returned to the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) on September 7, 2010.

B. On March 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was employed in Tae Young Construction Co., Ltd. B, a subordinate company of Tae Young Construction, and was receiving medical care until April 14, 2013 after receiving approval for additional medical care.

C. After November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to change the status of stay from other (G-1, the period of stay May 5, 2014) for the treatment of the above injury, and obtained permission to extend the period of stay until November 5, 2014 for the same reason.

On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for extension of sojourn period to the Defendant. However, on April 14, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the said application on the ground that the inevitable nature of domestic stay was insufficient to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on November 26, 2014, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on June 9, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the part of the claim to extend the period of extension of sojourn ex officio is legitimate in the part of the claim to extend the period of extension of sojourn.

Although the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the extension of sojourn period against the plaintiff, such a performance lawsuit is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, since it is a form of lawsuit seeking to delete the obligation of the court to take such administrative disposition against the court.