In light of the norms of the marriage system under the Constitution and the provisions of the Civil Act prohibiting intermediate divorce, which is a serious violation of the legal order of the Republic of Korea, even if the latter marriage is a de facto marriage, this is an important circumstance for the Minister of Justice to consider in the exercise of discretionary power over the permission of naturalization of the parties. In fact, the Minister of Justice examined the above application and examined Gap's heavy divorce, and ordered Gap to submit additional documents on family relations, etc. issued by related agencies in Bangladesh in order to confirm it, and found Gap guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means that Gap interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by a public official in charge of naturalization through fraudulent means, and the judgment became final and conclusive. In light of the above, Gap is "person who has a serious defect in the judgment of permission of naturalization," and there is a ground for revocation of permission of naturalization as prescribed by the statutes, and therefore, the above disposition is recognized as a ground for revocation of permission of naturalization, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Gap's disadvantage is much larger than the

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

A. The Plaintiff was a foreigner of his nationality in Bangladesh, and on September 27, 2004, married with Nonparty 1 who is a national of the Republic of Korea on September 27, 2004, and completed the marriage report on October 11, 2004.

B. On March 17, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission of simplified naturalization on the ground that “a person married with his/her spouse who is a national of the Republic of Korea has a domicile in the Republic of Korea for at least two consecutive years” (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. Accordingly, on April 25, 2013, the Defendant conducted a fact-finding survey on the facts of naturalization requirements by submitting documents related to the marriage from the Plaintiff in Bangladesh (hereinafter “fact-finding survey”), and on July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff determined that “spouse is a national of the Republic of Korea,” and that he/she satisfied the requirements for simplified naturalization. The Defendant permitted naturalization pursuant to Article 6(2)1 of the former Nationality Act (amended by Act No. 15249, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same).

D. Meanwhile, on April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff married with Nonparty 2 (English name 2 omitted) who is a citizen of Bangladesh, and on February 2, 2013, gave birth to Nonparty 3 (English name 3 omitted) among them. The Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 got married on December 21, 2015.

E. On October 25, 2018, the Plaintiff was convicted of committing a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means with respect to the act of obtaining permission for naturalization from the Changwon District Court Branch (Seoul District Court) on October 25, 2018, and was sentenced to a fine of two million won (hereinafter “related criminal judgment”). The judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “related criminal judgment”).

Around March 17, 2011, the Plaintiff’s criminal defendant filed an application for naturalization on the ground that he/she maintained a normal marital life with a citizen of the Republic of Korea on March 17, 201, notwithstanding the fact-finding relationship with Nonparty 2. On April 2013, the Defendant, at the Changwon Immigration Office, was married to the investigator of the above Immigration Office who is in charge of the fact-finding survey of the applicant’s nationality at the Changwon Immigration Office, and submitted documents, such as the local family register in Bangladesh, which was not registered by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3. Furthermore, the Defendant obtained permission for naturalization as “foreign spouse” on July 18, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties of a public official in charge of naturalization by deceptive means.

F. On January 18, 2019, the Defendant revoked permission for naturalization of the Plaintiff based on Article 21 of the former Nationality Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) procedural defect

Before rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant was unlawful since it did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to vindicate pursuant to Article 21(2) of the former Nationality Act and Article 27(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act.

2) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

According to Article 21 of the former Nationality Act, Article 27(1)1 and Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act, the defendant may cancel the permission or decision of a person who obtained permission for naturalization by fraud or other improper means, such as “the person who forged or altered evidentiary documents for the purpose of obtaining permission for naturalization or submitted forged or altered evidentiary documents for the purpose of obtaining permission for naturalization,” “other persons with serious defects in the judgment of permission for naturalization,” and “the person who obtained permission for naturalization.” However, according to the marriage law in Bangladesh, even if the person was married, the fact of marriage is not entered in the family register without reporting the marriage with Nonparty 2. The plaintiff was not entered in the family register register in Bangladesh because the plaintiff did not report the marriage with Nonparty 2. Therefore, since the plaintiff submitted documents that were not entered in the process of the instant application or the fact-finding survey in this case, the plaintiff maintained a normal marital relationship with Nonparty 1, and the plaintiff could not be deemed unlawful in the judgment that the plaintiff did not have any influence on the grounds of marriage between the plaintiff and Nonparty 2.

(iii) deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not have legal divorce with Nonparty 2, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was “serious divorce” prohibited under the Civil Act. The Plaintiff’s de facto marriage was without Nonparty 1’s consent, and the current Nationality Act is irrelevant to the “act of good conduct” stipulated under the naturalization requirement. The Plaintiff’s obstruction of the performance of deceptive scheme is not unlawful. The Plaintiff maintained a normal marital life with Nonparty 1 as a national of the Republic of Korea at the time of the instant application and the Defendant’s permission for naturalization. In addition, the Plaintiff has been living and lives in Korea for 16 years, and is living in Korea, and the Plaintiff is faithfully living while engaging in so-called “3D business,” the Plaintiff’s disadvantage to the instant disposition is much more serious than the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition constitutes a deviation and abuse of discretionary authority contrary to the proportionality principle.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

A) The Plaintiff was 1972 and Nonparty 1 was 1958.

B) Around November 1996, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as an “industrial trainee” and was found to have been illegally staying there. Around November 2003, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea upon receipt of a deportation order. On September 27, 2004, the Plaintiff married with Nonparty 1, and entered the Republic of Korea as “the spouse of the national” on February 9, 2006, and completed the alien registration and filed the instant application on March 17, 201.

C) The Defendant suspected the Plaintiff’s heavy divorce in the process of examining the instant application, and received the marriage relation and family relation documents issued by the relevant agency of Bangladesh from the Plaintiff around April 25, 2013 in the course of the instant fact-finding survey. The relevant documents contain the content of the Plaintiff’s answer to the clause “NOT” regarding whether the Plaintiff had another spouse permitted by the Muslim Act.

D) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff obtained permission for naturalization on July 18, 2014, and entered into a divorce agreement with Nonparty 1 on December 21, 2015. On November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with Nonparty 2 to the competent authorities in the Republic of Korea on November 4, 2016. After that, the Plaintiff, at the Embassy of Bangladesh-si, was preparing and submitting a visa (short-term visit C-3) application procedures for the issuance of a visa (short-term visit) so that Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 may enter the Republic of Korea as “her spouse and father of the stationed in the Republic of Korea.”

E) On December 2017, 2017, the consul of Bangladesh-si refused to issue a visa on the ground that “the Plaintiff is expected to move to the Republic of Bangladesh-si family at the time when a considerable period of time has elapsed after the payment in Korea, and the future family members are expected to move to the Republic of Korea through the acquisition of nationality.” On December 28, 2017, the consul requested the Defendant to know this situation and review appropriate measures.

F) The Defendant, at the time of the instant application, alleged that the Plaintiff married with Nonparty 2 of the Republic of Korea’s nationality while maintaining a marital relationship with a citizen of the Republic of Korea at the time of the instant application, he/she submitted documents omitted to the Defendant, and investigated relevant illegal charges against the Plaintiff on or around January 23, 2018 through the staff in charge of the Changwon Immigration Office under the Defendant. The Plaintiff, as a fiduciary relationship, appeared in the above Immigration Office with the representative Nonparty 4, etc. of “○○○○○”, working for the Plaintiff, and responded to the investigation. The Plaintiff, who was given permission for naturalization, made a written vindication stating “I will make the following statements regarding the cancellation of permission for naturalization” on February 1, 2018, and submitted “the lawful vindication of permission for naturalization” through an attorney-at-law ( Nonparty 5).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2) Whether procedural illegality is procedural illegality

A) According to Article 21(2) of the former Nationality Act and Article 27(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Nationality Act, the defendant shall give the party an opportunity to vindicate in order to revoke permission of naturalization pursuant to Article 21(1) of the former Nationality Act. The purport is to inform the party of the grounds for revocation before the revocation of permission of naturalization and to guarantee an opportunity to vindicate him/her as to the grounds for revocation or to submit favorable circumstances, and if an opportunity to vindicate him/her was granted, it is reasonable to deem that the above provision does not violate

B) According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff was in the form of responding to the investigation by the Immigration Office, it was recorded in the protocol by explaining its address related to the instant application. The above investigation was about whether the Plaintiff constitutes a case where permission for naturalization was obtained by false or other unlawful means. The Plaintiff prepared a document to explain his address in relation to the cancellation of permission for naturalization on January 23, 2018 in the procedure. Since the representative of “○○○○○”, who works together with the Plaintiff, was assigned to the Plaintiff as a person in trust relationship, even if the Plaintiff did not use the Korean language in its mother language, it is unreasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was given an opportunity to vindicate or submit favorable circumstances. The Plaintiff appointed a lawyer as his agent in relation to the investigation, and submitted his opinion related to the instant application and permission for naturalization in writing as of February 1, 2018. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff violated the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act, and the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was no violation of Article 27(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act.

(iii) the existence of the reasons for the action

A) Article 4(1) of the former Nationality Act provides that “A foreigner may obtain nationality of the Republic of Korea by obtaining permission for naturalization from the defendant.” Article 4(2) provides that “A foreigner shall be permitted naturalization only to a person who satisfies the requirements after examining whether a foreigner satisfies the requirements for naturalization.” The nationality determines the citizen’s qualification, and since a person who acquires the nationality becomes a sovereign of the State, at the same time becomes a sovereign of the State, the permission for naturalization constitutes an act of comprehensively establishing a legal status as a citizen by granting the nationality of the Republic of Korea to a foreigner. On the other hand, there is no provision to deem that a foreigner granted a right to acquire nationality of the Republic of Korea to a foreigner anywhere in the relevant statutes, such as the Nationality Act. Considering the form and language of the relevant provision on the basis of permission for naturalization, and the content and characteristics of permission for naturalization, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant has discretion to grant permission for naturalization even if an applicant meets the requirements for naturalization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du6496

B) Article 21(1) of the former Nationality Act provides that “The defendant may revoke the permission or ruling of naturalization, etc. against a person who obtained such permission by deceit or other fraudulent means.” Article 21(2) of the former Nationality Act delegates the criteria and procedure for revocation under paragraph (1) and other necessary matters to be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that permission of naturalization may be revoked against “other persons who have a serious defect in permission of naturalization or reinstatement of nationality, or in the determination of possession of nationality.”

C) According to the above facts, the plaintiff married with the non-party 2, who is a national of Bangladesh in the state of marriage with the non-party 1. Nevertheless, the plaintiff submitted documents related to a family register to the defendant in Bangladesh because it was omitted in the fact-finding survey of this case for the purpose of determining the permission for naturalization. The defendant, without knowing such fact, determined that "a foreigner whose spouse is a national of the Republic of Korea, has a domicile in the Republic of Korea for at least two consecutive years in the state of marriage with his spouse" and was entitled to be admitted as a member of our society pursuant to Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Nationality Act. In light of the following circumstances known from the above facts, if the defendant was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was a de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto marital relationship at the time of the initial disposition, it would be objectively presumed that he did not grant permission for simplified naturalization.

① In light of the fact that the applicant is the spouse of the citizen of the Republic of Korea, the term “simplified naturalization” under Article 6(2) of the former Nationality Act allows the applicant to naturalization more flexibly than the general naturalization requirements under Article 5 of the Nationality Act.

② Marriage and family life shall be established and maintained on the basis of individual dignity and gender equality, and the State shall guarantee that they are. Article 36(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides the normative core of the marriage system. This includes, as a matter of course, a partial part of the marriage system (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2011Hun-Ba275, Jul. 24, 2014). Article 810 of the Civil Act provides that “a person who has a spouse shall not be married again,” and Article 816 of the Civil Act provides that “when Article 810 is violated” as the ground for revocation of marriage. As such, a middle marriage is a serious violation of the legal order of the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, even if a de facto marriage is de facto, this is an important circumstance for the Defendant to consider in the exercise of discretionary power over whether to permit naturalization of a party.

③ In fact, the Defendant examined the Plaintiff’s heavy divorce while examining the instant application, and required the Plaintiff to submit additional documents on family relations, etc. issued by the relevant agencies in Bangladesh to the Plaintiff. In examining the instant application, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s heavy divorce.

④ Even if it is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial in an administrative trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du28240, May 24, 2012). The relevant criminal judgment found the Plaintiff guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means that the Plaintiff interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by a public official in charge of naturalization, and the judgment became final and

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s “person who has a serious defect in the determination of permission for naturalization,” and there exists a ground for revocation of permission for naturalization as prescribed by law, so the instant ground for disposition is recognized. The Plaintiff’s assertion against this is without merit.

4) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or abused

In light of the following circumstances revealed from the facts acknowledged earlier, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff were to be considered, the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff in the instant disposition is much larger than the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power against the principle of proportionality. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

(1) As seen earlier, in light of the norms of the marriage system prescribed by the Constitution and the provisions of the Civil Act prohibiting the intermediate divorce, a part of the Japanese legal system is the major legal order

② The Defendant has a discretionary authority to refuse or revoke permission for naturalization by examining whether an applicant for naturalization is a person to respect and observe the legal order and system of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, in determining whether to allow naturalization, the circumstance that the Plaintiff maintained a de facto marriage with Nonparty 2 is an important element to refuse permission for naturalization. As seen earlier, the Defendant investigated the Plaintiff’s heavy divorce while examining the instant application, and the documents submitted to the effect that the Plaintiff “the Plaintiff has no other spouse permitted by the Muslim Act” affected the previous disposition of permission for naturalization.

③ The relevant criminal judgment acknowledged the Plaintiff’s intentional act in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to permission for naturalization. The Plaintiff’s act cannot be deemed to be somewhat unfair, and the possibility of criticism is also small.

(4) Since permission for naturalization is an administrative disposition comprehensively establishing a legal status as a citizen of the Republic of Korea, if a serious defect is discovered in such disposition, recovering legality of administration by correcting it is an important public interest.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)