1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition, on December 16, 2013, denying the extension of the period of stay, etc. against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 200, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as industrial trainee on May 15, 200, and changed the status of stay to the training employment on May 16, 2002. On October 11, 2004, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with the Republic of Korea nationality C (D, the present status was changed to E; hereinafter the same shall apply).

On December 1, 2004, the Plaintiff changed the status of stay to the spouse qualification of the citizen.

B. On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition, such as the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that the Plaintiff, as a result of the fact-finding survey on December 16, 2013, married in Pakistan and married to C and constitutes a heavy marriage in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is 1) Article 11(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act (Prohibition of Entry, etc.) provides that arbitrary interpretation is possible by using an indefinite concept, and thus, it violates the principle of clarity and the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the instant disposition based on this is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff, who entered and stays in the Republic of Korea in his unmarried state in Pakistan, was married with C on October 11, 2004, while living together and married as a legal couple.

However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff had already married in Pakistan prior to the marriage with C, and thus, the marriage with C constitutes a heavy marriage. Therefore, the Defendant erred by misapprehending the facts and abusing discretion by abusing the discretionary authority.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) With respect to the assertion that a disposition is based on a law in violation of the principle of clarity and proportionality, it is related to the interest of the Republic of Korea, public safety, or economic and social order.