1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), filed a marriage report with B on January 31, 2007, who is a national of the Republic of Korea, and obtained the status of stay on September 19, 2007 [the spouse of the citizen shall be granted the status of stay (title F-2) before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 23274 on November 1, 201, and the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Act was enforced on December 15, 2011, while the above Enforcement Decree was amended as above, the spouse of the citizen shall obtain the status of stay (title F-6).]

On September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce against B (Seoul Family Court 2010ddan79735). Since the location of B is not identified, the said lawsuit was proceeded by public notice, and as a result, the judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim in whole:

1. The Plaintiff and B shall be divorced.

2. B was sentenced to consolation money in the Plaintiff on June 14, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 2, 2011. The Plaintiff was granted the status of stay for marriage immigrants (who F-6) on the ground that his marriage with B falls under subparagraph 4 (c) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, since the marriage with B was terminated on August 24, 2012 due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself. The Plaintiff filed an application for permission to extend the stay period to the Defendant on August 6, 2013, the date on which the period of stay of the said marriage immigrants expired, and the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s fact-finding survey on November 12, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Defendant’s fact-finding survey and the cause not attributable to himself/herself is unclear (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition in the entirety of the arguments and arguments that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the overall purport of the argument is legitimate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion was divorced

In addition, the plaintiff is also in the fact-finding survey of the defendant, which will reduce the Korean language properly.