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, as an overseas Korean of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), entered the Republic of Korea on January 24, 2006 with his sojourn status of visit and employment (mark F-1), and has been staying in the Republic of Korea on several occasions from February 5, 2009 with his sojourn status of visit and employment (H-2) extended on several occasions.

B. On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of the status of stay to the status of permanent residence (F-5) on March 30, 2012, but the Defendant rejected it on March 14, 2013.

C. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to change the status of stay again to the status of permanent residence (H-5). However, on July 16, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s change of qualification on the ground that “any other reason, such as the failure to conduct good behavior, etc.” was “any other reason.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 23, 2014, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision on December 23, 2014.

E. Meanwhile, on March 14, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 400,000 by forging a notarial deed by blood or marriage, and on June 25, 2013, while serving as a general restaurant employee, the Plaintiff sells alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

Although it was discovered that there was no criminal history, and it was a non-prosecution disposition of the suspension of indictment on July 8, 2013 in consideration of the circumstances, such as the fact that there was no employee's only, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not intentionally submit false documents at the time of filing an application for change of the status of stay in 2012, but the offer of juvenile alcoholic beverages in 2013 was committed by violating the law on one hand while working as an employee. Thus, the Defendant’s refusal to change the status of stay in the Plaintiff on the ground of the above violation of the law was an abuse of discretionary power permitted to the Defendant.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (i) The Plaintiff’s application for change of status of stay.