1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with B, a national of the Republic of Korea, as a foreigner of Vietnam nationality.

On July 15, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a marriage immigration (F-6) and obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on July 20, 201, respectively, on June 23, 201, and on May 18, 2012, obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on July 15, 201.

B. B died on March 16, 2013, and on June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of stay with the Defendant as a marriage immigration (F-6). On August 6, 2014, the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s application for extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff could not be deemed that the Plaintiff had performed a normal marital life due to the preparation for departure and divorce litigation, etc. at the time of the death of B.

C. On August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 13, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition was faithful to his marital life even in an economically difficult environment after the marriage with B, but the plaintiff did not work and did not properly pay his living expenses to the plaintiff while managing the money, and caused the plaintiff to take verbal abuse and assault against the plaintiff while under the influence of alcohol, and caused the plaintiff to institute a divorce lawsuit, and the plaintiff died while the lawsuit was pending. Accordingly, the plaintiff was unable to maintain his normal marital life due to the reasons attributable to B at the time of his death. Thus, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for extension of the period of stay on the premise that he was responsible for the failure of normal marital life. Thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful since it was based on erroneous facts, and thus, the plaintiff's deviation from and abuse of discretionary power is adjacent to B and 3 years.