1. The Defendant’s rejection of the decision on July 1, 2014, such as the extension of sojourn period, against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 20, 1998, the Plaintiff, a Chinese national, entered the country as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term visit (C-3), and illegally stayed, and went into the country upon being exempted from punishment for a return program on March 18, 2005. On April 9, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the country as a sojourn status of visit Dong (F-1) sojourn status on April 7, 2009, and returned to the Republic of Korea on May 28, 2009 as a sojourn status of Visit (H-2) sojourn status.

B. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the change of status of permanent residence (F-5) around July 2, 2012, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal of status of sojourn alteration due to other reasons, such as uncertainty of kinship.

C. After that, on July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained permission for extension of the period of stay as a visiting employment (H-2 on May 18, 2014), and on September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-permission for alteration of the status of stay with the status of permanent residence (F-5) sojourn from visiting employment (H-2) status on September 5, 2013. However, on July 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant permission for alteration of the status of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014, by setting the departure time limit as July 15, 2014 under Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, such as where the status of stay is unclear (or where the verification of the relationship with father-child is not possible).

On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 23, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. B, who is a national of the Republic of Korea of the Plaintiff, had been married with D and entered into E and F as his child. After D’s death, H and the Plaintiff were born between G and the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, his father or mother, was a national of his father or mother, and applied for the status of permanent stay, but the defendant is the plaintiff B.