1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on March 26, 2016 with the status of stay for Arts Promotion (E-6) on the basis of the nationality of KIKO, and obtained permission for extension of the period of stay until February 24, 2017, but illegally stayed without obtaining permission for extension of the period of stay thereafter.

B. On October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Seoul Immigration Office.

On November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of status of stay with the Seoul Southern Immigration Office for change of status of stay (G-1). However, on November 2, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision not to permit change of status of stay until November 16, 2017.

C. On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the postponement of the departure period to the above Immigration Office, and on November 7, 2017, the said Immigration Office postponed the departure period until January 16, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff is in the process of examining refugee status.

Since then, the Plaintiff was granted a grace period for two to three months of departure, and the departure period was postponed until February 16, 2019.

The Plaintiff did not obtain an extension of the grace period until February 16, 2019, which is the expiration date of the grace period, and visited the Defendant administrative agency on February 19, 2019.

On the same day, the Defendant issued a notice of KRW 700,000 on the grounds that the Plaintiff stayed outside the scope of the period of stay for two days from February 18, 2019 to February 19, 2019, and issued an order for departure based on Articles 17(1), 94 Subparag. 7, and 68(1)5 of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 10, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Before the determination of facts and violation of laws and regulations becomes final and conclusive, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) It deviates from discretion.