1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 18, 2005, Plaintiff A, a foreigner of Vietnam’s nationality, was married to Plaintiff B of the Republic of Korea nationality of the Republic of Vietnam while entering the Republic of Korea on October 18, 2005 and staying there.

B. On December 7, 2018, Plaintiff A left Vietnam and thereafter applied for the issuance of visa (Status: F-6) to the Defendant to enter the Republic of Korea, but the Defendant rejected this on February 21, 2019.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The gist of the Defendant’s main defense to safety is not recognized as a legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition of refusal to issue a visa to the Plaintiff who is a foreigner, and the Plaintiff B is merely the spouse of the Plaintiff, not the other party to the instant disposition, and merely is a person with an indirect or factual and economic interest in relation to whether to issue a visa to the Plaintiff A, and there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition. 2) There is no legal interest in requesting the Plaintiff A to issue a visa to the Defendant, and the Defendant does not have a duty to respond to the Plaintiff’s application.

Therefore, the Defendant’s refusal of Plaintiff A’s application for visa issuance does not infringe on Plaintiff A’s specific rights or legal interests. Thus, the instant disposition is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

3) Since the instant lawsuit was filed on January 22, 2020 after the lapse of 90 days from February 21, 2019, which was the date of disposition, the period of filing the lawsuit is unlawful. B) In the case of the Plaintiff A of Vietnam’s nationality, whether the Plaintiff is standing to sue, the legal nature of the issuance of the visa, the legislative purpose of the Immigration Control Act, and the Immigration Control Act, although the said Plaintiff resided in the Republic of Korea for 13 years after the lapse of the spouse of the Republic of Korea’s nationality, the said Plaintiff, who is not an overseas Korean, only said Plaintiff, is the Republic of Korea