1. The Defendant’s disposition of nonpermission, such as the extension of the period of stay against the Plaintiff on March 17, 2017, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional (E-9) foreigner with four arms nationality.

B. After completing the report of marriage with B on August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application to change the status of stay in the capacity of marriage immigration (F-6) on September 12, 2016.

C. On March 17, 2017, the Defendant rejected the said application against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the lack of authenticity of marriage and the uncertainty of the spouse’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, etc.”

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case". 【The Grounds for Recognition' does not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion maintains a genuine matrimonial relationship, such as the Plaintiff’s completion of the marriage report with B and the Plaintiff’s residence. Thus, the instant disposition denying the Plaintiff’s application for change of status of stay was unlawful by mismisunderstanding the facts or abusing discretion

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. 1) In light of the language, content, form, system, etc. of Article 24(1) of the Immigration Control Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the permission to change status of sojourn has the nature of a snow-right disposition that grants the applicant the right to engage in activities that are different from the original status of sojourn. Thus, even if the applicant satisfies the requirements prescribed by the relevant statutes, the permission-granting authority shall have the discretion to decide whether to grant the permission in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn, impact on the public interest, etc. However, if there is a serious error in the fact-finding based on which the decision was made at the time of exercising such discretion, or if there is a reason such as violating the principle of proportionality and equality or significantly lose validity under the social norms, it is illegal as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4846, Jul. 14, 2016).