1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission on March 27, 2017, including the extension of the period of stay, against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) on January 6, 2017.

B. On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the status of stay as a specific activity (E-7), and entered the C Hospital International Medical Center located in Gui-si B on March 25, 2017.

C. On March 27, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “any other reason, such as failure to meet the requirements for the employment of the national” was “any other reason.”

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 10, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion C Hospital and the Plaintiff did not have any grounds for disqualification in the employment and employment of foreigners, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission to change the Plaintiff’s sojourn status due to confusion between the revocation of the qualification of foreign patient attraction institution and the restriction on foreign employment of the employment company with respect to C Hospital, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful by misapprehending the facts

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In light of the language, content, form, system, etc. of Article 24(1) of the Immigration Control Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, permission for change of status of sojourn has the nature of a permanent disposition that grants the applicant the right to engage in activities that fall under the status of sojourn different from the original status of sojourn. As such, the permitting authority granted the applicant the right to engage in activities

Even if the applicant is qualified, the purpose of stay, the impact of the public interest, etc., shall have discretion to decide whether to grant a license.

I would like to say.

However, if there is a serious error in the fact-finding that is the basis of the judgment when exercising such discretion, or if there is a reason such as violating the principle of proportionality and equality or significantly losing validity under the social norms.