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 December 3, 2007, the Plaintiff, who has the nationality of the People's Republic of China, entered the Republic of Korea as a sojourn status of residence (F-2) on March 16, 2008 after completing the marriage report with B of nationality of the Republic of Korea.

(The identification mark of the plaintiff was changed to F-6 by the revision of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act. (B)

On December 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a divorce suit against B with Seoul Family Court Decision 2010Ddan110254, and the said court rendered on July 7, 201, to the Plaintiff and B a decision in lieu of conciliation to the effect that “the Plaintiff and B are divorced due to a cause attributable to them, and the costs of litigation are borne by each party,” and the said decision became final and conclusive on July 28, 201 as the Plaintiff and B did not object to the said decision.

C. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for nationality, and was granted permission to extend the period of stay on the grounds of the application for nationality, but the permission for naturalization was denied on the ground of the failure to pass the naturalization test twice.

On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the change of the status of stay to the permanent residence (F-5) status. However, on July 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on other grounds, such as insufficient authenticity of marriage and lack of proof of causes attributable to the former spouse.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 5, 10, 12, Eul

1. Descriptions of three cards (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion maintained a genuine matrimonial relationship with B, the marriage relationship was broken down due to B’s mistake, such as assault, waste, intimidation, and mental disorder.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the judgment that the authenticity of marriage is insufficient and that the cause attributable to B was not proven is unlawful as it is an abuse of discretion.

B. (1) Determination is made on Article 10(1) and (1) of the Immigration Control Act.