1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a foreigner of Mongolian nationality and the wife B (hereinafter “foreign foreigner”).

B. On June 23, 2015, the Nonparty entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis. On September 1, 2015, the status of stay was changed to a general training (D-4), and thereafter, the period of stay period for the said status was extended several times (the expiration date of the final period of stay: May 15, 2017).

C. On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status, and on June 29, 2016, the status of stay was changed to F-3 accompanied by (F-3). On November 16, 2016, the period of sojourn period for the said status of stay was extended (the expiration date of sojourn period: May 15, 2017).

On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty filed an application for permission to extend the respective period of stay with the Defendant. On August 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the extension of the period of stay on the grounds of “unqualified financial expenses, etc.” to the Nonparty, and on the same day, the Plaintiff issued a disposition to deny the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 15, 2017 on the grounds of “the non-permission of being accompanied by the non-permission of the original qualification”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on August 10, 2017, but was dismissed on April 17, 2018.

F. Meanwhile, the Nonparty, who was dissatisfied with his/her disposition, filed an administrative appeal on August 10, 2017, but was dismissed on January 9, 2018, and subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition under Seoul Administrative Court 2018Gudan7566, but the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Nonparty’s claim on September 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Nonparty asserted that the Plaintiff had sufficient funds necessary to stay in the Republic of Korea due to the status of stay in general training.

However, it uses ordinary cash mainly without being able to understand bank transactions.