1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. According to the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 2011, the Plaintiff is a foreigner of the nationality of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (hereinafter “Vietnam”), and reported marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on May 13, 2008, and pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201, the Plaintiff constitutes marriage immigration (F-6-A) under Article 12 [Attachment 1] 28-4.

The stay period has been extended over five times by entering the Republic of Korea as sojourn status and staying in the Republic of Korea.

B. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce against B on the ground that “B, from around January 201, 201, left the Plaintiff from around three years after marriage, and did not treat the Plaintiff as his spouse, and the type B demanded the Plaintiff to pay one million won per month living expenses.”

On November 20, 2013, the above litigation entered into an adjustment that “the plaintiff and B shall proceed to divorce” (Seocheon District Court Branch Decision 2013Ddan7045), and the plaintiff and B were divorced.

C. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend the period of stay.

(hereinafter “instant application”). However, on July 3, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s instant application on the grounds of “the suspicion of the authenticity of a prior marriage and any other reason attributable to the former spouse, such as the lack of proof, etc. attributable to the former spouse”

(See Evidence No. 4, hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was married with B on May 13, 2008, and lived with B in the Republic of Korea, and on December 2008, the Plaintiff maintained a genuine marital life with B, such as the pregnancy of his child between B and B.

(However, on January 2, 2009, the Plaintiff refused to do so with the Plaintiff from January 2, 201, as well as the Plaintiff from January 2, 201.