The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that this court's additional decision in this court only applied for permission for change of status of sojourn to support the spouse's Korean living, there was no illegal employment or illegal stay, and it is possible to receive financial support from the parent in his own country, and also to make income by obtaining a part-time employment permit. Thus, the disposition of this case which makes the plaintiff's couple who is a new couple separate from the plaintiff's husband is an illegal disposition that deviates from its discretionary authority."

The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court is not different from the contents of the plaintiff's claim in the first instance court. The first instance court's judgment rejecting the plaintiff's claim on the grounds as cited earlier, even after examining the evidence (Evidence A to No. 6-2, No. 6-17) submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance court, is justifiable. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiff is not accepted. [In particular, the defendant has broad discretion to decide whether to grant a foreigner's permission by taking into account the legal eligibility, purpose of sojourn, influence on the public interest due to permission, consistency with immigration administration, etc. concerning foreigner's change of status of sojourn, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has the financial capacity necessary for the change of status of sojourn to F-3, and considering the circumstances where it is difficult for the plaintiff to obtain a job permit on a part-time basis within Korea as the plaintiff's spouse's accompanying qualification, the defendant's disposition of this case is not acceptable.