1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China on July 27, 1975, entered the Republic of Korea as industrial trainee (D-3) on August 22, 2006, changed the status of non-professional employment (E-9) on August 14, 2007, and completely departed on June 7, 2009.

B. On July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff returned to B on March 6, 2012, the status of non-employment (E-9) sojourn (E-9 until July 30, 2012), and reported the marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea, and stayed on August 27, 2012 after changing the status of stay to that of marriage immigration (F-6). On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce and claim for solatium (U.S. District Court Decision 2017Ra30706, Jun. 28, 2017), and B filed a counterclaim (No. 2017da311500), and on August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff and B were divorced respectively, but the said judgment became final and conclusive upon being sentenced to the judgment dismissing the claim for solatium (hereinafter “instant divorce judgment”).

C. Meanwhile, on June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the change of the permanent residence status (F-5) to the Defendant. However, on May 18, 2016, the Defendant rejected the decision due to the lack of Korean language ability, poor status of marriage status, etc. as a result of the fact-finding survey conducted on May 18, 2016, and issued a permanent residence status erroneously due to computer input error, but subsequently revoked the change of the permanent residence status

D. On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for permission to extend the period of stay to the status of stay of a married immigrants (F-6-3) on the grounds of the causes attributable to B, but on February 26, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision not to grant permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the entry of the Plaintiff’s unilateral causes attributable to B in the instant divorce judgment is unclear.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff 1) B caused the plaintiff 1 to be responsible for the plaintiff 1) B, after marriage, is not easy to live together with the remaining family members of the former wife in the house located in the Siried City.