1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a foreigner of the Socialist Republic of Socialist Republic of Vietnam on May 13, 2008, who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea on May 13, 2008, and constitutes marriage immigration (F-6-A) under the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 on November 1, 201, as amended on August 7, 2008, pursuant to Article 12 [Attachment Table 1] 28-4.

Sojourn status has entered the Republic of Korea and has been staying in Korea.

B. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce against B (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2013Ddan7045) and divorced from B through conciliation on November 20, 2013.

C. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the sojourn period to the Defendant. However, on July 3, 2014, the Defendant did not grant permission on the ground that “the doubt of the authenticity of a prior marriage and the failure to prove the cause attributable to the previous spouse, etc.” and designated the Plaintiff’s departure period as July 17, 2012.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-permission of the extension of the period of stay (this Court Decision 2014Guhap13133), and on July 16, 2014, applied for the postponement of the departure period to the Defendant, and the Defendant suspended the departure period of the Plaintiff on September 3, 2014.

E. On September 4, 2014, the Defendant issued an order for departure on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 17(1) of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap 1, 3, 5, 1, 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion maintained a genuine marital life with B, but became divorced with B's form and father's unfair treatment.

Therefore, since the plaintiff asserts the illegality of the non-permission disposition for extension of sojourn period and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition, the departure period for the plaintiff should be postponed. However, since the plaintiff did not file an application for postponement before the departure period due to mistake, the plaintiff does not comply with the departure period following the non-permission disposition for extension of sojourn period.