The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 29, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a visa for non-professional employment (E-9) as a foreigner of the nationality of Sri Lanka.

B. After the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s stay ( April 28, 201), the Plaintiff was faced with a traffic accident on May 17, 2014 while illegally staying in the Republic of Korea. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to change the status of stay to other (G-1) qualifications for the purpose of treating the disease.

Since then, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the insurance company, etc., the defendant extended the period of stay of the plaintiff by December 5, 2016.

C. On November 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the status of stay or other (G-1) on the grounds thereof. However, the Defendant rejected the application and issued a disposition suspending the departure period against the Plaintiff.

On December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition not to recognize refugee status, and thereafter, was granted a grace period again when filing a lawsuit to revoke a disposition not to recognize refugee status.

On February 18, 2018, the Plaintiff was rendered a final and conclusive judgment against the Supreme Court.

E. On March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for granting the status of stay to the spouse (F-6-1) status of stay on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s spouse was unable to display his/her spouse’s child due to a protruding disorder, and on April 3, 2018, prior to the expiration date of the departure period permitted by the Defendant, the Plaintiff applied for the Defendant’s status of stay as the spouse’s spouse’s (F-6-1) status of stay.

F. On August 22, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition denying granting the status of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “Plaintiff’s wife B is suspected of having a normal marital life, such as counseling related to domestic violence, etc., and the Plaintiff’s domestic stay abroad is poor, and other humanitarian grounds for granting the status of stay in Korea exist” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful.