1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 11, 2017, the Plaintiff, as a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as a 14-day short-term visit sojourn status for medical tourism and stayed, and applied for permission to extend the period of stay to the Defendant on February 22, 2017.

B. On March 2, 2017, the Defendant rejected an application for extension of the period of stay on the ground that there is no inevitable reason to extend the Plaintiff’s period of stay.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision on October 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that, as a result of the chest X-ray shooting conducted by the Central University Hospital on February 15, 2017, the size of chest X-ray should be observed, and the Plaintiff’s chest X-ray should be taken again from the doctor, and it is necessary to compare it with the results of the Plaintiff’s X-ray and computer short-rise shooting test conducted in Mongolia. The period of stay should be extended for the Plaintiff to receive accurate diagnosis through an additional test.

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

C. 1) Determination of the extension of the period of sojourn under the Immigration Control Act is that granting an applicant the authority to stay in the Republic of Korea beyond the original period of sojourn permitted, and to conduct activities falling under the status of sojourn to the Republic of Korea, and is closely related to the performance of functions as a sovereign State. Therefore, even if an applicant satisfies the requirements prescribed in the relevant statutes, the permitting authority should have broad discretion to determine whether to grant a license, taking into account the applicant’s eligibility, the purpose of extension of the period of sojourn, the impact on the public interest, etc.