1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2013, the Plaintiff married with B around February 2015, after receiving the introduction of B of the People’s Republic of China’s nationality from her natives B.

B. B, under the name of C on July 31, 2007, stayed in the Republic of Korea with a visa for sojourn status of residence (F-2) in an overseas diplomatic mission abroad on grounds of marriage with D, and stayed in the Republic of Korea on or around April 2013, the expiration date of the period of stay after divorceing on or around April 21, 2013.

C. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application for recognition of the issuance of visa for the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) to B (hereinafter “instant application”). D.

On the other hand, according to Articles 17(3) and 9-4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 871, Jul. 5, 2016; hereinafter the same), the Defendant received a civil petition for the extension of sojourn period of C, not B, and issued a written application for extension of sojourn period to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the visa for the purpose of marriage immigration (F-6) was abolished in Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 9, Eul 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. It is unlawful to accept the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of visa issuance on the ground that the above system was abolished, even though the system was not abolished around the Plaintiff’s assertion summary and the visa issuance system for the purpose of marriage immigration was abolished.

Preliminaryly, it is unlawful that the Defendant’s failure to take any measure against the above application even if the Defendant did not refuse the Plaintiff’s application for visa issuance approval.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) On the premise of the discussion on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant gave guidance to the instant application that it is impossible to receive the instant application as “a visa issuance application” and received C’s “an application for extension of sojourn period.”