1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), filed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on February 27, 2007, and resided in the Republic of Korea upon obtaining permission for extension of the period of sojourn on June 6, 2007, as the status of stay (F-2

Furthermore, on May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on May 24, 2012 (on June 6, 2013, the expiration date of the period of stay), and the extension of the period of stay on April 23, 2013 (on June 6, 2014, the expiration date of the period of stay), as the status of stay of marriage immigration (F-6, the spouse of the citizen; the status of stay of the citizen was changed from the “resident” to the “Marriage immigration”).

B. After that, on April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of stay with the Defendant as the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6). On July 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on July 16, 2014 to deny the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 4, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 5, 6, 7, 11, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion maintains a genuine marital life with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea.

However, under a different premise, the instant disposition that the Defendant misleads the fact of the marriage, based only on the interview or erroneous fact-finding survey conducted at the time of applying for permission for naturalization, is irrelevant to the permission for extension of the period of sojourn, and is based on the fact-finding survey conducted at the time of the application for permission