1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiffs were foreigners of Mongolian nationality, and Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) on November 15, 2015, and changed the status of stay to the qualification of general training (D-4) on January 27, 2016. Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) status on November 8, 2015, and changed the status of stay to the qualification of accompanying (F-3) status on February 5, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to extend the period of stay (hereinafter “instant application”). On January 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant permission to extend the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s financial ability is insufficient to prove and other reasons” with respect to the Plaintiff A, and that “the Plaintiff’s non-permission to extend the period of stay, etc. is not satisfied” with respect to the Plaintiff B.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 24, 2017, but were dismissed on June 23, 2017.

【In light of the fact that there exists no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of additional evidence attached), the overall purport of the pleadings, and the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate at the time of changing the status of stay of the plaintiffs, despite the fact that the plaintiffs already recognized the financial ability of the plaintiffs at the time of changing the status of stay of the plaintiffs, the disposition of this case is against one's own binding power, and the plaintiffs have appropriated money necessary to stay in the Republic of Korea through their parents. In light of the fact that the disposition of this case

Judgment

1. Articles 10 (1), 24 (1) and 25 of the Immigration Control Act shall require a foreigner to enter the Republic of Korea, and a foreigner who stays in the Republic of Korea shall have the status of sojourn prescribed by Presidential Decree.