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

4 Prior to Article 10(1) and (2) of the Immigration Control Act, the following shall be added to the 11st line.

The following shall be added from the fourth bottom of "The instant disposition-related laws, etc. are as shown in the attached Form." to five lines:

The "Foreign Immigration Policy Headquarters established by the Ministry of Justice on the basis of foreigner's sojourn status, etc." under the Ministry of Justice is a discretionary rule, i.e., administrative agency's internal rules established on the basis of the exercise of discretionary authority, in light of its form and content. The discretionary rules established by administrative agencies must be respected as far as possible, unless it is objectively deemed reasonable and unreasonable. However, the criteria set by the Alien New Policy Headquarters are reasonable and reasonable in line with the basic principles of foreigner's sojourn management under the Immigration Control Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act."

The plaintiff asserts that the Ministry of Justice has suspended the compulsory departure of a child staying in Korea until the completion of a high school at the time of the plaintiff's wish, but during that period, he/she has to live with the fear of continuous crackdown, cannot receive educational expenses, cannot receive proper treatment due to difficulties in joining the national health insurance, and the unstable status is unable to design the future, and the substantial right of education is not guaranteed. However, just because the plaintiff asserts that he/she does not meet such requirements, he/she is not obliged to stay as a foreign student (D-4-3). The reasons for the judgment of the first instance.