1. The Defendant’s decision of non-permission on April 8, 2014, including the extension of the period of stay, against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 18, 200, the Plaintiff, as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), was found to have re-expliced the status of stay to non-professional employment (E-9) after having entered the Republic of Korea after having obtained a passport under the name of "B (C)" and having changed the status of stay to a non-professional employment (E-9), but was found to have re-expliced after the expiration of the period of stay.

B. On August 18, 2006, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea after obtaining a voluntary report under the name of “A” (A, D) and returned to the Republic of Korea as the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) on September 16, 2007.

C. On August 4, 2009, the Plaintiff reported marriage with the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) who was a national of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the deceased”) on September 22, 2009, and then constitutes marriage immigration (F-6-A) under the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 on November 1, 201, as amended on September 22, 2009, Article 12 [Attachment 1] 28-4.

The status of stay has been modified to the status of stay in the Republic of Korea.

On September 23, 2011, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to change the status of stay (F-2) to that of permanent residence (F-5).

However, on June 14, 2012, the Defendant decided not to accept an application for alteration of the status of stay filed by the Plaintiff on the grounds of “insufficient financial capacity, poor behavior, etc.”

E. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff again requested the Defendant to change the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) to that of permanent residence (F-5).

(hereinafter “instant application”). However, on April 8, 2014, the Defendant decided not to accept an application for alteration of the status of stay filed by the Plaintiff on the ground that “the lack of authenticity of the marriage (as a result of a fact-finding survey, the family member’s lack of recognition and the former spouse’s belief to work until his/her death)” was denied.

(See Evidence Nos. 1, hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"), 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 7, as a whole, and all pleadings.