1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, entered the Republic of Korea on February 1, 2003, and left the Republic of Korea on December 12, 2003, and left the Republic of Korea on May 13, 2007, and left the Republic of Korea on May 26, 2007, and again, entered the Republic of Korea on June 14, 2007 as short-term (C-2) sojourn status, and stayed on August 17, 2007, after the expiration of the period of stay (F-2 August 17, 2009).

B. After that, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on May 17, 2015, and left the Republic of Korea on July 25, 2015, again, entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) status on March 2, 2016 and applied for a change of status of stay to the Defendant on May 27, 2016, which was before the expiration date of the period of stay (C-3).

C. On June 7, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to allow the Plaintiff to extend the period of stay, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the purport of denying the Plaintiff’s application due to the reasons such as “not subject to change of qualification under Article 9(1)1(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act,” which is recorded in the past domestic stay and illegal stay, and the uncertainty of academic purpose.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on March 2, 2016, and applied for permission to change the status of stay on May 27, 2016 after entering the Korean Language Institute for the purpose of studying in Korean language.

The Plaintiff did not consider that there was no notification of the fact that the status of stay was not changed at the time of the initial issuance of the visa, that the Plaintiff obtained a short-term visit visa despite an illegal stay, that an illegal stay was caused during the divorce process, and that it was caused to the instant application to enter Korean schools to obtain familiar Korean language.