1. The Defendant’s non-permission disposition against the Plaintiff, such as the extension of the period of stay on August 28, 2015, and August 31, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff, on April 19, 2007, entered the Republic of Korea with a non-professional employment (E-9) qualification as Vietnam, and the period of sojourn expired on April 19, 2008.

B. B married with a Korean national male on April 1, 2009, and naturalization on December 3, 2013, but reported a divorce on October 28, 2014.

C. On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report of marriage with B, and on August 27, 2015, filed an application to change the status of stay with the Defendant as the spouse of the citizen (F-6-1).

On August 28, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rejection of the said application on the ground of “an illegal stay for less than three years, less than seven years, and more than seven years and four months after the acquisition of the nationality of his/her spouse”; on the 31st of the same month, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the voluntary departure by September 30, 2015 pursuant to Articles 17(1), 24(1), 46(1)8, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter the above return notification and departure notification are referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition', Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including each number), the witness B's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Immigration Control Act requires “less than three years after the acquisition of the spouse’s nationality” as the criteria for examining the status of stay under the Immigration Control Act shall be applied separately from the case of granting a new status of stay and extending the status of stay.

The Plaintiff and B are married to a normal marriage and B are expected to give birth on January 25, 2016. If the three-year standards are strictly applied, the risk of failure in home due to long-term separation is likely to occur because the Plaintiff shall depart from Vietnam per head of the Gu, and the application for visa for entry cannot be made until December 3, 2016.

The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not fully consider these circumstances, is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;