1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission, such as the extension of sojourn period, against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2013, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 20, 1998, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a visa on a short-term comprehensive (C-3) visa on November 20, 1998, and went out of the Republic of Korea after being subject to the disposition of departure order on July 26, 2001.

B. After that, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on August 20, 2001 with the status of stay for visit (F-1) and changed the status of stay to the status of marriage immigration (F-2-1) on the ground that he/she married with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on June 28, 2002.

C. Around April 26, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against B as the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court Branch of 2011ddan2422, and the said court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff and B were divorced on the ground that the marriage relationship was extinguished due to a cause attributable to B on August 11, 2011, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, on September 8, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for changing the status of stay into a permanent resident (F-5), but the Defendant rejected the application for changing the status of stay on the ground of good behavior, etc. on July 25, 2012.

E. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of stay for a married single-child status, but on September 6, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition denying the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) due to lack of objective data on the grounds attributable to the husband B, who is the husband, on September 6, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion and B’s marital life led to failure due to reasons attributable to B, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that there was insufficient objective data on the Plaintiff’s application for extension of the period of stay due to reasons attributable to B. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful.

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

(c) judgment (1).