1. The Defendant’s disposition of denying the extension of sojourn period, etc. against the Plaintiff on November 8, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, entered the Republic of Korea on November 2, 200 as the sojourn status of visit and residence (F-1). On February 21, 2001, after completing a marriage report with a national of the Republic of Korea on February 21, 2001, Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act on October 24, 2001; Article 12(274 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201) (attached Table 1 attached hereto).

Pursuant to this item, the status of stay (F-2) as a "spouse of a national" (F-6 under the current Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act) (the spouse of a marriage immigration (F-6) has obtained the status of stay as prescribed in Article 12 [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274, Nov. 1, 201), and the status of stay as a "spouse of a national" is granted as prescribed in subparagraph 27 (F-2). According to Article 12 [Attachment Table 1] of the current Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, the status of stay as a "resident of a national" (F-6) has been granted, and the status of stay has been granted for the extension of the period of stay (F-6) over several occasions after the expiration of the final period of stay: September 19, 2017).

B. B died on April 7, 2017, and on September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for extension of the sojourn period to the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the sojourn period to the Defendant on September 18, 2017. However, on November 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to permit the extension of the Plaintiff’s sojourn period (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not live for a long time with the spouse, and there was a lack of authenticity in marriage, such as the lack of authenticity in marriage,” etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was living together with B (hereinafter "the deceased") from November 2, 2000, and was living a marital life, and due to the main wall of the deceased, he was living separately from the end of 2006.

The death of the deceased shall be the monthly amount.