1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance should explain are as follows: (a) the reasons why the plaintiff is required to refer to the argument that the court of the first instance emphasizes in particular, or re-convened, is identical to the reasons of the first instance judgment, except for addition under the following: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was in a genuine marital relationship with the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not even know about the Plaintiff’s application for change of the Plaintiff’s status while making only a formal fact-finding survey with the Plaintiff and B.

The meaning of the abbreviationd language used in the disposition of this case which rejected the change of the plaintiff's status of stay for the reason that the authenticity of marriage is not recognized is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

that is illegal.

B. On the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this judgment, the following circumstances, namely, ① obtaining permission to change the status of stay from a foreigner staying in the Republic of Korea as a status of stay (F-6) is substantially the same as obtaining a visa for the purpose of marriage stay from a national of the Republic of Korea, which is different from obtaining a visa for the purpose of marriage stay.

Therefore, even if a foreigner staying in the Republic of Korea applies for a change of his/her status of stay as the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6), it is reasonable to view that he/she should apply again six months after the date on which the change of his/her status of stay was denied pursuant to Article 9-5(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act. ② In light of the contents of each school curriculum prepared by the Plaintiff and B, not only conflict with each other, but also the marriage and divorce between B and C, it is not deemed that the marriage between the Plaintiff and B is true, and ③ the Plaintiff is not accurately aware of his/her occupation and job and B B or his/her birth.