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 of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”), was married on December 7, 2006, who is a national of the Republic of Korea, and on June 26, 2007, entered the Republic of Korea as a residence status (F-2) and stayed in the Republic of Korea on December 27, 201, and acquired the status of permanent residence (F-5) on December 27, 201.

B. On October 12, 1995, the Plaintiff entered a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status using a passport issued in the name of C (C and D) on a short-term basis, but confirmed that he/she was engaged in illegal stay for about ten years and seven months until June 3, 2006, and was repatriated to China on November 1, 2012 and subject to the disposition of entry restriction for five years, but thereafter, the entry restriction was temporarily revoked, and re-enters into the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) on September 28, 2013, and applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant on August 18, 2015.

C. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that denied the extension of the period of stay against the Plaintiff on the ground of “the extinguishment, etc. of the grounds for cancellation of entry regulations.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, as seen above.

(1) Although the Plaintiff was illegally staying in Korea from 1995 to 2006, it has been married with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea and lay the social foundation in the Republic of Korea while maintaining the marital life for at least ten years, and currently is responsible for the family’s livelihood while working in the subway Corporation. The instant disposition goes against the principle of proportionality because it is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff.

(2) On September 28, 2013, the Plaintiff is the spouse of the citizen, and the entry restriction was revoked due to the necessity of medical treatment due to traffic accidents, and re-entry into the Republic of Korea with the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6). Even if the entry restriction was made, the spouse of the citizen is most eligible for sojourn, except in cases where the marriage is not genuine.