1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The existence of administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation in administrative litigation, is an ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15499, Jul. 27, 1993). The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to extend the period of stay or change the status of stay. If the Defendant rendered a decision to deny the application against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2016, it is sought to revoke the application.

If Eul evidence Nos. 17-1, 2, and 3 showed the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant only ordered the plaintiff to depart on October 11, 2016, and the same day did not allow the plaintiff to extend the period of stay or to change the status of stay.

(A) The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it seeks the revocation of an administrative disposition against which the Defendant was not the Defendant.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.