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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following Paragraph 2: therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on new arguments in the trial

A. From October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the status of stay was changed due to corporate investment (D-8), the Plaintiff did not significantly change the financial status of the instant company from October 22, 2012 until May 19, 2015, for which the period of stay was extended.

However, in the management guidelines for aliens staying in the Ministry of Justice, the defendant made the disposition in this case that the financial condition of the company in this case is not good for the reason that the "person who has poor business performance or poor business management" is defined as the grounds to restrain stay. The disposition in this case is unlawful against the principle of protection of trust, which is the general principle of administrative law, or the principle of self-defense.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion of violation of the principle of protection of trust in order to apply the principle of protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency: ① an administrative agency’s public statement of opinion that is subject to trust to an individual; ② an administrative agency’s trust in the statement of opinion that is justifiable should not be attributable to the individual; ③ the individual should have been aware of and engaged in any act corresponding thereto; ④ an administrative agency’s disposition contrary to its statement of opinion that is contrary to its statement of opinion may result in an infringement of the interests of an individual trusted in the statement of opinion; and ⑤ an administrative disposition based on its statement of opinion that is likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party should not be applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du46, Jun. 9, 2006).