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 Chinese national, completed the marriage report with B of the Republic of Korea on March 29, 2007, and entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay of residence (F-2) on November 4, 2008.

B. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant on June 25, 2015, while obtaining an extension of the period of stay under the F-6 status of stay for married immigrants (F-6). On August 5, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the said application to the Plaintiff for other reasons, such as lack of authenticity of marriage (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion maintains a normal marriage life with B and genuine will.

Therefore, the instant disposition was made by mistake of facts, and is unlawful.

B. According to Article 25 of the Immigration Control Act, Articles 12 [Attachment 1] 28-4 and 31(1), etc. of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where an applicant applies for the extension of the period of sojourn to the permitting authority in submitting documents, etc. regarding the extension of the period of sojourn, the permitting authority shall investigate whether the applicant is the spouse of the true citizen or the applicant is qualified for marriage immigration, and shall determine whether to allow the extension of the period of sojourn in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn, impact on public interest, etc.