1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea to non-professional employees visa (E-9-2) and worked at the Defendant’s workplace from March 17, 2016.

On September 24, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to request the extension of the period of employment to the Defendant in advance due to the expiration of the period of employment. However, the Defendant did not obtain the permission to extend the period of employment at the latest.

The Plaintiff sought compensation for damages equivalent to wages that the Defendant could receive during that period because the Defendant could have worked more than one year and ten months in the Republic of Korea if the Defendant had filed an application for extension of the period of employment.

2. Article 18-2(1) of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that a foreign worker employed by an employer who has obtained an employment permit under Article 8(4) of the Act may obtain an extension of the period of employment to the Minister of Employment and Labor by up to two years only once, for which the employer requested an employment permit before departure from the Republic of Korea after the expiration of three years.

On the other hand, Article 13-4 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers requires that an employer should not leave his/her domestic workers due to an adjustment in employment from two months before the date of application for the recruitment of nationals to the date of issuance of the employment permit for foreign workers under Article 8(4) of the Act.

In full view of the following facts: (a) Nos. 2 and 3 evidence; (b) the fact-finding results and the purport of the entire pleadings with the head of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office of this Court on August 30, 2016, the Defendant applied for an extension of the period of employment with the Plaintiff on August 30, 2016; (c) however, the head of the old District Office can only recognize the fact that the Defendant applied for an extension of the period of employment with the Plaintiff on August 6, 2016, on the ground that the Defendant was at the risk of management, and the Defendant did not permit the extension of the period