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 entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) on May 10, 2015 as a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, and obtained permission for change from the Defendant on July 7, 2015, on the ground that he/she is taking the Korean language course at the Korean language institute at B University Language Research Institutes (D-4).

B. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained permission for extension of the period of stay from the Defendant until April 18, 2016. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff re-application for permission to extend the period of stay to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On June 20, 2016, the Defendant rejected the instant application from the Plaintiff on the ground that “The details of deposits under the pretext of benefits are illegal employment, suspicion of illegal employment, uncertainty of academic purpose, etc.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was paid the Plaintiff’s deposit from the Plaintiff’s relative as a salary, and the Plaintiff is currently attending the Korean language course at a Korean language school in B University up to now.

Therefore, the defendant is deemed to have taken the instant disposition based on erroneous facts, and it can be deemed to have abused discretion.

B. In light of the language, content, form, system, etc. of Articles 10 and 25 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 12 [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] and Article 28-4(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 18-2 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, permission for extension of sojourn status has the nature of a permanent authority to grant the applicant the right to extend the original status of sojourn. Thus, even if the applicant satisfies the requirements prescribed in the relevant statutes, the permission-granting authority has the discretion to decide whether to grant the permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn

However, when exercising discretion, it shall be determined.