1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a man of the Moroc Kingdom of Marocco (hereinafter “Morocco”)’s nationality, and obtained permission to change the status of stay as a general training (D-4) on January 27, 2015, and obtained permission to change the status of stay on July 20, 2015.

B. On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with a Korean national on July 27, 2015. On August 20, 2015, the status of stay was changed to a marriage immigration (F-6-1 and the spouse of the citizen) and extended the period of stay for marriage immigration, and was staying in the Republic of Korea and divorced from the said female on August 26, 2017.

C. On November 27, 2017, prior to the expiration of the period of stay based on the status of stay for marriage immigrants already granted prior to the divorce, the Plaintiff established B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) with capital of KRW 101,00,000 pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “B”), and was appointed as the representative director.

On February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the status of stay (D-8) to an enterprise investment (D-8) that is a foreign-capital invested company.

E. However, on March 7, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to permit the alteration of the status of stay on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an essential expert.

(hereinafter “instant disposition.” Although the title of the instant disposition is “Notice of Non-permission on Extension of Sojourn Period, etc.,” the reason for non-permission is stated in the column of non-permission, it is deemed that there was a decision not to change the status of stay against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 12 through 15, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes “essential professionals who intend to engage in business administration or production technology of foreign-invested enterprises under the Foreign Investment Promotion Act”.

Even if not, the plaintiff is 100 million won in B.