1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. 【Evidence of Disposition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, entry of Nos. 1, 4, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff, as a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, entered the Republic of Korea on December 7, 2005 with the status of non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn and engaged in job-seeking activities for about three years after entering the Republic of Korea.

B. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff re-enters the Republic of Korea with the short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status, and subsequently changed the status of stay to the general training (D-4) on January 22, 2016. From March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff attended the early course of Korean language at B University International Language Research Institute (hereinafter “instant fish Research Institute”).

C. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the extension of the period of stay with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant, on March 3, 2017, submitted a false certificate of attendance, issued a departure order pursuant to Articles 68, 46(1)8, 10-2, and 17(1) and Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Immigration Control Act on the ground that the Plaintiff engaged in an activity outside the status of stay in Korea, and issued a non-permission decision on the extension of the period of stay, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition,” including the order for departure and the decision on the extension of the period of stay, etc.) on the ground of the order for departure.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even if there was an error in the attendance rate stated in the certificate of attendance submitted by the Plaintiff, this is due to the administrative error of the fish farming institute in this case. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have submitted a false statement in violation of Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Immigration Control Act. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was actually engaged in trade business, but the Plaintiff merely purchased and sent necessary goods to the wife that operates miscellaneous stores in Mongolia. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually engaged in trade business and engaged in activities outside the status of sojourn.

3. The disposition of this case prevents the Plaintiff from completing all of the Korean language courses planned by the Plaintiff.