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 entered the Republic of Korea on July 2, 2016 as short-term visits (C-3) sojourn status.

Plaintiff

B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff B”) filed an application for the change of status of stay as a general training (D-4) on September 12, 2016, and the Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”) filed an application for the change of status of stay (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiffs’ application”) in the capacity of visiting Dong (F-1) on the same day.

On November 7, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the extension of sojourn period, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiffs on the ground of “the lack of financial capacity and the impossibility of staying in Korea” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on November 17, 2016, but was dismissed on May 26, 2007.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments of Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 entered the Republic of Korea, and Plaintiff A entered the Republic of Korea to educate Plaintiff B while having been working in Mongolia for several years as English teachers, and her husband also had a stable life, such as having earned a considerable amount of income while living in his/her workplace.

In addition, the personal assets of the Plaintiff A are approximately KRW 80 million, and the husband's property is much more than that of the Plaintiff's property.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which did not evaluate only the Plaintiff A’s income and assess her husband’s property, was unlawful as it was erroneous as it mismisunderstanding facts or abused discretion.

Judgment

1. Articles 10 (1), 24 (1) and 25 of the Immigration Control Act shall require a foreigner to enter the Republic of Korea to obtain such status of sojourn as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and where a foreigner who stays in the Republic of Korea intends to engage in any activity falling under the status of sojourn different from such status of sojourn, the foreigner shall obtain prior permission to change his/her status of sojourn from the Minister