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 April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the status of stay for specific activities (E-7) on April 1, 2014 as a foreigner of the nationality of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “China”), and served as a secretary at the B store from around that time to October 8, 2015 (hereinafter “instant workplace”).

B. On October 12, 2015, in order to receive wages in arrears with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the Plaintiff filed a petition with C, the business owner of the instant workplace, and was unable to continue to work at the said workplace, and filed an application for alteration of status of stay with the Defendant on October 20, 2015.

C. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-permission decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of “other reasons, such as lack of requirements, etc.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to the Ministry of Justice’s management guidelines for foreigners staying in the Ministry of Justice, the change of status of stay is allowed to job-seeking status (D-10) for those who wish to continue to work for a specific activity (E-7) but failed to request renewal of employment contract or other workplace prior to the expiration of the period of stay. However, during the period of employment contract within the last one year, those who were voluntarily retired during the period of employment contract without any cause attributable to the employer is limited.

This is to protect good employers who are not responsible for the violation of the principle of trust and good faith and to establish the order of stay of foreigners by preventing abuse of the job seeking system.

The plaintiff reported to the Ministry of Employment and Labor as the business owner did not pay part of the wages under the name of "a guarantee money for escape" to the plaintiff, and thus, constitutes a legitimate exercise of rights, and an employment relationship is severed due to a cause attributable to the business owner, and thus, the plaintiff is changed to