1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's explanation is as follows: (a) the court's 6th of the court's 6th of the court's 6th of the court's 6th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 196th of the 1
D. Determination 1 of the meaning of the relevant laws and regulations provides that the restoration of nationality shall not be permitted in cases where the defendant falls under any subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the Nationality Act, since it is necessary to exclude a person who is a national of the Republic of Korea and is recognized as a member of the Korean community and is in danger of undermining the integration and order of the State and society as a sovereign in consideration of the fact that the foreigner was a national of the Republic of Korea and was a national of the Republic of Korea.
Although such recovery of nationality is recognized as a field of high-level policy decision, the defendant should exercise its discretionary power reasonably in consideration of the legislative purpose of the Nationality Act, the legislative intent of the individual provisions that prescribe the requirements for recovery of nationality, and the contents of the language and text.
In light of the above legal principles, "a person whose conduct is not good" under Article 9 (2) 2 of the Nationality Act refers to a person who simply commits a criminal act.
In light of the contents of the law in question and the circumstances leading to such act, the age, occupation, family, career, and criminal record relation of the person who seeks recovery of nationality, the character and behavior that could cause trouble to becoming a member of our society can be seen.