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 July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Mongolian nationality status as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis. Since the Plaintiff obtained the change of sojourn status from the Defendant on November 2, 2015 as a general training (D-4) sojourn status, the Plaintiff obtained permission for extension of sojourn period on two occasions and received training in Korean language from B International Language Research Institute (hereinafter “instant fishing Research Institute”).

B. On October 19, 2016, at the time when the Plaintiff applied for extension of the period of stay to the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a certificate of attendance issued on October 13, 2016 (hereinafter “certificate of attendance”).

C. On April 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the part on the instant certificate of attendance was false; (b) determined the departure time limit as of May 24, 2017 pursuant to Articles 26 subparag. 1, 46(1)10-2, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act; and (c) issued an order for departure (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even if there was an error in the attendance rate stated in the certificate of attendance of this case without the reason for disposition, this is due to the administrative error of the fish driving school of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have submitted an application containing false facts in violation of Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Immigration Control Act. 2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was not engaged in activities other than status of stay in the Republic of Korea, and there was no other illegal act in the Republic of Korea, and that the Plaintiff’s efforts to return to Mongolia had been difficult for the Plaintiff to complete training and return to Mongolia, the disposition of this case should be deemed to be unlawful as the disposition that the Defendant abused discretion on immigration administration.

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;