1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of Sri Lankan nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as the status of non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn.

The plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on May 12, 2015 and left the Republic of Korea on the 15th of the same month after filing a marriage report with B who is a Korean national.

8. 1. Entry into the Republic of Korea as the status of stay for marriage (F-6) and the period of stay was extended on September 1, 2016 by obtaining permission for extension of the period of stay from the Defendant twice thereafter.

B. On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the extension of the period of stay with the Defendant. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a written withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s spouse B submitted to the Plaintiff a written withdrawal of the fidelity guarantee on July 29, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s spouse visited the Plaintiff’s residence, but all of the Plaintiff was absent, and the Plaintiff and B’s mobile phone were suspended at the employer’s request, making it impossible to ascertain the authenticity of marriage (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a refusal of the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant sent the instant disposition (Evidence A No. 1) to the Plaintiff’s domicile by registered mail but returned without being served a written disposition, which was served on August 10, 2017 on the bulletin board.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has been filed with the lapse of the filing period.

As to this, the Plaintiff sent the instant disposition to the Plaintiff once, and then returned, immediately served by public notice. The mere fact that the instant disposition sent by mail was returned once, is the requirement for service by public notice under Article 91(2) of the Immigration Control Act.