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 or after May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as an industrial trainee on or after June 1, 2004, and was staying illegally in Korea. On or after November 2, 2011, the Plaintiff was granted permission for change to the status of stay as the spouse (F-6-1) of a national among marriage immigrants on or after reporting marriage with B a national of the Republic of Korea on or after November 24, 201.

B. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a change of status of stay to the Defendant for permanent residence (F-5) status.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.

The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had two children D and E after marriage in Pakistan, and rejected the Plaintiff’s change of status of stay pursuant to Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act on February 14, 2017 on the ground that “the submission of false documents, etc.” was “other reasons.”

hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case"

(i) [Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was married with B while entering and staying in the Republic of Korea in Pakistan, and that B had two children already and could no longer have a child between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and that B would have a child in another place.

The Plaintiff’s mother wanted to marry from Pakistan to be married to another woman, and in the Pakistan, the Plaintiff has become married from Pakistan to another woman in accordance with her mother’s meaning. The Plaintiff became married to another woman.

However, since the women reported their marriage in Pakistan between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, they became the middle marriage, and they currently divorced from the women, the marriage with B cannot be deemed to be the middle marriage.

Therefore, there is an error of law that deviates from or abused discretionary power by misunderstanding the facts.

(b).