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 as to the instant case are stated are as follows: (a) the Immigration Control Act of Section 8 of Section 2 of the first instance judgment is dismissed as “the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 15492, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “Immigration Control Act”) and add the following letters to Chapter 12 under the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 15492, Mar. 2018; hereinafter “Immigration Control Act”); and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasizing the Plaintiff while submitting additional evidence at the trial is identical to the reasons of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment under paragraph (2) below as to the assertion that the Plaintiff presented the additional evidence

No person who falls under Article 26 (Prohibition of Submission, etc. of False Documents) of the Immigration Control Act shall engage in any of the following conduct in connection with an application for permission prescribed in Articles 20, 21, 23 through 25, 25-2, and 25-3:

1. Filing an application by unlawful means, such as submitting a forged or altered document, etc. as evidentiary materials, or submitting an application stating false facts. Article 46 (Persons subject to Deportation) (1) The head of the competent Regional Immigration Service may force the alien falling under any of the following subparagraphs to withdraw from the Republic of Korea in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Chapter:

10-

2. The head of a Regional Immigration Service may order an alien who violates Article 26 to depart from a place specified in any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A person who is deemed to fall under any subparagraph of Article 46 (1), but intends to depart voluntarily at his/her own expense;

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition should be revoked, since the Plaintiff and B, while submitting additional evidence No. 12 at the trial of the party, continuously maintained a matrimonial relationship by marriage in 1985.

However, the above evidence No. 12 is related to the marriage application between the plaintiff and B and this.