1. On January 22, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of denying the change of status of stay granted to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On July 31, 200, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), and as a technical training (D-3) on July 31, 200, and left the Republic of Korea on July 21, 2003, when the period of stay expires, and left the Republic of Korea on July 21, 2003.

On March 31, 2004, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea. On July 22, 2004, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a resident (F-2, the spouse of the citizen). On July 31, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for simplified naturalization pursuant to Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act, but was rejected on August 5, 2009 due to the unknown whereabouts, etc.

On October 14, 2009, the Plaintiff and B divorced in court on the ground of the Plaintiff’s running home.

(U) On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff applied for general naturalization pursuant to Article 5 of the Nationality Act, but was not justified on September 16, 2013, on the ground that the conduct was not good.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report of marriage with C who is a national of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant marriage”). On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of status of stay to the qualification of marriage immigration (F-6, and the spouse of the citizen). On January 22, 2014, the Defendant denied the change of status of stay for other reasons, such as lack of the authenticity of marriage between the Plaintiff and C, and notified the Defendant that he/she will leave the Republic of Korea by February 5, 2014.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleadings are as follows: (a) there is no dispute over the instant disposition; (b) Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 9; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleadings; and (c) the Plaintiff and C, even after the divorce between the past and the past, once having been divorced on 203, once they were married, they were married again in accordance with C’s resolution consolidation; and (d) the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Facts of recognition

① In around 1993, the Plaintiff married with C, a Chinese national, and gave birth to D.