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 May 20, 2004, the Plaintiff entered as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), as a short-term (C-2) qualification, and reported marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea around July 20, 2004, and stayed with the permission of stay in the capacity of residence (F-2) on August 17, 2004.

B. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay for marriage immigration (F-6). However, on March 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant the said application to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s lack of authenticity of marriage, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(C) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on or around July 21, 2015. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap 2, 5, 6, 16, 17, and Eul 1, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion maintains a genuine matrimonial relationship with B since 2004.

The plaintiff opened a restaurant in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the consent of B due to domestic circumstances, and the restaurant and B live together with C.

The restaurant is in Guro-gu.

It is not possible to hold B's house.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. In light of the system’s comments, etc. under Article 25 of the Immigration Control Act and Articles 12 and 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, permission for extension of the period of sojourn constitutes a discretionary act in which the permitting authority determines whether to grant permission by granting a new period of sojourn exceeding the scope of the original period of sojourn, which is determined by the granting authority, in consideration of the applicant’s eligibility, purpose of sojourn, impact on public interest, etc.

Therefore, in particular, when a foreigner's spouse applies for extension of the period of sojourn to continue to stay beyond the period of sojourn, the permitting authority is a true marital relationship.