1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a general tourism qualification (C-3-9) from among short-term visits on a short-term basis, and repeated entry and departure with a general tourism qualification for three times as indicated below.

On January 28, 2019, status 1 of the date of departure from the Republic of Korea on February 22, 2019, C-3-9 on March 29, 2019, the Plaintiff entered the status of stay (F-6) as a general tourism qualification (C-3-9) again on May 10, 2019, on March 29, 2019, on May 6, 2019, when the period of stay expires (C-3-9 June 9, 2019) and the period of stay was imminent on May 29, 2019.

Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition for change of status of stay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act on the ground that the Plaintiff is “persons subject to restriction on change of status of stay in the Republic of Korea-short-Visa holders” (hereinafter

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff's assertion as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and Eul's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings was married normally with Eul citizen of the Republic of Korea, and Eul's disposition of this case is unlawful since the defendant's change of status of stay was denied despite the situation where the base salary income in 2018 meets the income requirements such as 30,300,000 won. In addition, even though the defendant can submit materials proving international marriage guidance program completion, spouse's income, communication status, health condition, and criminal record in the course of the disposition of this case, the defendant was examined in the way of denying the plaintiff's application with suspicion as to the authenticity of marriage between the plaintiff and Eul, and it is also improper in the humanitarian perspective to make the plaintiff and Eul who are in a normal marital relationship unable to live together with the plaintiff.