The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of a monmon nationality with the status of stay for short-term visits (C-3) together with B, the spouse of the Plaintiff on August 1, 2019 and C, the second son.

B. On October 2, 2019, B filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the status of stay as a corporate investment (D-8) status, and the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the status of stay as a accompanying (F-3) status of stay.

(c)

On November 13, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision not to change the status of stay on November 20, 2019 on the following day to the effect that “B is subject to compulsory eviction because it falls under Article 20, Article 11(1)3 and 4, Article 46(1)3 and 8 of the Immigration Control Act, but wishes to depart voluntarily, and that “the departure is made by December 12, 2019 pursuant to Article 68(1)1 of the same Act,” and that “the departure is made by December 12, 2019.” On the same day, the Defendant rendered a decision not to change the status of stay on November 20, 2019 on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to the departure order and the alteration was denied as above (hereinafter “disposition in this case”).

(d)

On November 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 30, 2020.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The disposition of the order for departure and the disposition of the non-permission for alteration of the status of stay against the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion are all unlawful. Therefore, the instant disposition should also be revoked as unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c)

Judgment

1) Articles 10, 24(1) and 25 of the Immigration Control Act shall have the status of stay that falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 10 of the same Act for a foreigner who intends to enter the Republic of Korea, and the status of stay of the Minister of Justice shall have the status of stay that falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 10 of the same Act for a foreigner who stays in