1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with his/her parent as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on July 12, 2015, and applied for refugee status with his/her parent on August 6, 2015. However, on August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan23533, Sept. 7, 2016) to revoke the decision not to grant refugee status on September 7, 2016 and stayed as other (G-1) sojourn status (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan23533, Jun. 222, 2017), which became final and conclusive as against the Plaintiff by the decision not to dismiss the appeal, and the period of sojourn expires on August 15, 2017.

B. On August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for change of the status of stay as a foreign student (D-4-3) who was lower than a high school. However, on September 13, 2017, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the non-permission decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that he/she was not subject to qualification change and the Plaintiff’s refusal decision to leave the Republic of Korea until September 27, 2017, but the period of departure was postponed on the ground that the Plaintiff was in attendance at the E elementary school and the Plaintiff’s refusal decision was pending in Supreme Court Decision 2017Du54982.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 5, 6-1, 2, 8 through 14, Eul’s 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is an illegal disposition that deviates from or abused discretion, in violation of the principle of equality and proportionality as follows.

1) Article 2 and Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of which Korea is a member of the Republic of Korea shall guarantee the right to education of all children without any discrimination. Article 6 of the Constitution explicitly states that a foreigner is guaranteed his/her status in accordance with international law and treaties. Article 8 of the Framework Act on Education provides that all citizens have the right to receive elementary education for 6 years and secondary education for 3 years, so the plaintiff as a child must be protected by the said provisions.

Nevertheless, it is not possible.