1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered the Republic of Korea as the husband and wife of Mongolian nationality together with each short-term visit (C-3) status on January 25, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”, and Plaintiff B is referred to as “Plaintiff 2”). B

Plaintiff 1 obtained permission to change his/her status of stay as a general training (D-4) on February 11, 2016. After July 29, 2016, Plaintiff 1 obtained permission to extend his/her status of stay (the expiration date of the period of stay: February 5, 2017) on July 29, 2016. Plaintiff 2 obtained permission to change his/her status of stay as an accompanying (F-3) status on March 2, 2016 on the ground that Plaintiff 2 acquired the status of stay as above, and thereafter obtained permission to extend the period of stay (the expiration date of the period of stay: February 5, 2017) on August 1, 2016.

C. On January 24, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application again with the Defendant for the extension of their respective sojourn period. However, on February 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to permit the extension of their respective sojourn period on the ground of the Plaintiff 1’s lack of financial capacity as to February 20, 2017, and on the ground of the Plaintiff 2’s refusal of the extension of their sojourn period on the ground of “the refusal of the extension of their primary qualification person’s visa, etc.” (hereinafter in sequence referred to as “instant disposition”; collectively, “the instant disposition”).

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each disposition of the instant case and filed an administrative appeal on March 3, 2017, but C Committee dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ appeals on January 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs 1 asserted that the plaintiff 1 received an overseas remittance from the friendship in Mongolia was living together with the plaintiff 2 and performed his studies faithfully. At the time of filing an application for extension of his sojourn period, the plaintiff 1 submitted all the materials proving the financial capacity of the plaintiff 1 to the defendant.

Each of the dispositions of this case under the premise that the plaintiff 1 has no financial capacity is the basis for determining the exercise of discretionary power.