1. The Defendant’s disposition of denying the extension of sojourn period, etc. against the Plaintiff on March 3, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a person of the nationality of the People's Republic of China, entered the status of stay for a specific activity (E-7) on July 16, 2007, and served as Hariman at the Chinese specialty chain in China.

B. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff retired from the above restaurant, and obtained permission to change his/her status of stay from the Defendant as a qualification for job-seeking (D-10), and was extended on two occasions on February 28, 2015.

C. On November 2014, the Plaintiff had a restaurant “D” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and applied for the extension of the period of stay to the Defendant by changing the status of stay to the previous specific activity (E-7).

However, on March 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the instant restaurant was a restaurant with both tagss and that it is difficult to deem it necessary to view it as a Chinese professional restaurant.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a specialized restaurant for foreign food, but is not a specialized restaurant for foreign food, is unlawful.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff has faithfully conducted economic activities for eight years from entry into the Republic of Korea, and that the Plaintiff has treated the base of life therein, and that Korean language studies are very strong to acquire Korean nationality, etc., the instant disposition that deprives the Plaintiff of the status of stay is a disposition that deviates from or abused the discretion by violating the principle of proportionality.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. According to Article 10(1) of the Immigration Control Act and Article 12 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “a person who intends to engage in activities specially designated by the Minister of Justice according to a contract with a public or private organization in the Republic of Korea” shall be specified E.