1. The part concerning the order for departure of the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a foreigner of the Chinese nationality of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”), was married with the Chinese national B (C) and divorced on or around April 15, 2008, filed a marriage report with D who is a national of the Republic of Korea on April 15, 2008, and pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 on February 1, 2009, as amended on November 1, 201, Article 12 [Attachment 1] 28-4.

Sojourn status has entered and stayed in the Republic of Korea.

B. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for extension of the sojourn period to the Defendant.

However, on February 25, 2014, the Defendant decided not to accept an application for extension of the sojourn period filed by the Plaintiff on the ground that “the lack of authenticity in marriage, etc.” was “the lack of authenticity in marriage,” and notified the Plaintiff of his departure by March 11, 2014.

(See Evidence No. 4, hereinafter the plaintiff's refusal of extension of sojourn period. 【Disposition of this case’) / [this ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, 4, and 6, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the part regarding the order for departure of the lawsuit of this case is lawful, the Plaintiff issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff and ordered departure from March 11, 2014 to leave the Republic of Korea. The above order for departure was made by mistake as to the authenticity of marriage between the Plaintiff and D, and sought revocation thereof.

ex officio, the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation, is a lawful requirement of administrative litigation. Thus, insofar as there is no disposition seeking revocation, the lawsuit shall be dismissed as unlawful, unless there is a disposition seeking revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6707, Aug. 26, 1997). According to the foregoing recognition, the Defendant notified the departure of the departure period until March 11, 2014, stating the departure period in the notice of disapproval on the extension of the sojourn period in the instant disposition, and the said notification does not permit the extension of the sojourn period.