1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission on February 5, 2014, such as the extension of the period of stay, against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was a foreigner of Chinese nationality, reported marriage with B on January 22, 2003, and entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay on April 4, 2003 (F-2) and divorced from the above B on March 3, 2004.

B. Notwithstanding the divorce, the Plaintiff filed a marriage report with C on August 27, 2008 while illegally staying in Korea on August 27, 2008, and was granted the extension of the period of stay as a marriage immigration (F-6-1) on October 1, 2008.

C. Meanwhile, on October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for changing the status of stay to the permanent residency status. However, on September 27, 2012, the Defendant rejected the application for change of the said status of stay on the ground that the status of stay was not good due to the past illegal stay.

On December 2012, the Plaintiff filed a divorce suit against C with the Seoul Family Court as 2012ddan108057, and on July 23, 2013, “the Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced. The Defendant, who paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff, has concluded an adjustment to the effect that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be divorced.”

E. On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant as a marriage immigration (F-6-3). However, on February 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition denying the extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion and C’s marital life led to the failure due to the cause attributable to C, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for extension of the period of stay was insufficient to prove the cause attributable to C, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case

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

C. (1) Determination is that Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that “A foreigner who intends to enter shall have the status of stay prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 25 of the same Act provides that “A foreigner shall have the status of stay.”