1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After filing a marriage report with B on May 28, 2007, the Plaintiff, a Chinese national, entered the Republic of Korea on November 27, 2007 as a national’s spouse (F-2-1, current F-6-1) status, and stayed in the Republic of Korea upon obtaining permission for extension of the period of stay, and applied for extension of the period of stay on April 13, 2012, which was before the expiration of the period of stay (F-2-1, May 27, 2012). However, on July 24, 2012, the extension of the period of stay was denied, and thus, the Plaintiff was staying in the illegal stay status after obtaining the extension of the period of stay as the national’s spouse (F-6-1) status on September 4, 2014.

B. On the other hand, B given birth to Friend D with the Plaintiff.

On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on the grounds of divorce and designation of a person with parental authority due to the conflict between B and B’s parents. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on September 5, 2014 with the Daegu Family Court (2014da15523), and the Plaintiff rendered a favorable judgment with the purport that “the Plaintiff and B shall be divorced. The Plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of D.”

C. On April 23, 2015, prior to the expiration of the period of stay (on April 30, 2015), the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay for marriage immigrants (F-6-2). However, on June 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the Plaintiff’s application for extension of the period of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion had no choice but to live separately from B due to work, but is the most faithful family's livelihood during marriage, such as paying living expenses to B.