1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. While the Plaintiff’s Chinese nationality is a foreigner, entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (D-3) on May 2, 2002, entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (D-3), and was staying in the Republic of Korea on November 7, 2003 upon obtaining a change of status of sojourn for industrial training (E-9) on a condition of November 7, 2003, he/she is staying without obtaining permission for extension of the period of sojourn, even though he/she did not obtain

On November 23, 2010, the defendant was subject to deportation.

Since then, on February 2011, the plaintiff submitted a forged Chinese identification card and family register to the defendant to the defendant. However, as if it was a Korean with foreign nationality, the plaintiff was reported as a Korean with foreign nationality and stayed after obtaining permission for change of status of sojourn.

On July 5, 2016, the Defendant left the Republic of Korea after filing a voluntary report.

B. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis, and introduced USD 90,000 (hereinafter “instant investment amount”), and established B on August 29, 2016, and left the Republic of Korea on October 17 of the same year.

C. On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis, and applied for a change of status of sojourn to the Defendant on November 4, 201 of the same year. However, on the 29th of the same month, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s application for a change of status of sojourn on the ground that the source of payment is unclear and the use of the past forgery identification card

On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on the 28th of the same month, and applied again for the alteration of status of sojourn to the Defendant on January 3, 2017 as an enterprise investment (D-8) sojourn status. However, on January 10, 2017, the Defendant again rejected the Plaintiff’s application for alteration of status of sojourn on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against it and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the same year.

9. 22. Dismissal was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.