1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the entry in this case by the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the part partially modified as follows and the allegations added by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the

[Supplementary part] Part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 15492, Mar. 20, 2018) is amended as “former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 15492, Mar. 20, 2018).”

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court is "Enforcement Decree of the same Act" in Part 20 as "former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29163, Sep. 18, 2018)".

The first instance court’s judgment is as follows: “Article 31(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act; Article 76(2)6, and attached Table 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act” under the attached Table 3 of the first instance court’s judgment, “Article 30(1) and Article 31(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 28870, May 8, 2018; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act”); Article 76(2)5, 6, and 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act.”

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s refusal of change of the Plaintiff’s qualification is unlawful as it violates Article 30(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act and Article 76(2)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, for lack of financial requirements necessary to permit the extension of the period of stay, even though the Plaintiff applied for a change of qualification.

① As seen earlier, even if an applicant satisfies the requirements prescribed by the relevant statutes, the permitting authority, as a disposition of permanent authority, has broad discretion to determine whether to grant permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of stay, impact on public interest, etc.; ② Article 76(2)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act.