귀화허가취소처분 취소청구의 소
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’s mother B, a Chinese national, entered the Republic of Korea around 1996 and applied for a general naturalization pursuant to Article 5 of the Nationality Act on February 6, 2002, and obtained a general naturalization permission from the Defendant on December 31, 200.
B. On November 8, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for special naturalization pursuant to Article 7(1)1 of the Nationality Act (a person whose father or mother is a national of the Republic of Korea) to the Defendant on November 8, 2005, and acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea with the permission of special naturalization granted from the Defendant on December 2, 2005.
C. On February 7, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke permission for naturalization under Article 21 of the Nationality Act and Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that “acquisition of the nationality of the Republic of Korea by submitting false documents related to his/her status (acquisition by obtaining the nationality in the name of another person)” against B.
B filed a revocation suit against the disposition of revocation of permission for naturalization, but this Court was sentenced to the judgment of dismissal on August 30, 2013 (2013Guhap6336), and appealed, but the Seoul High Court was sentenced to dismissal on September 16, 2014.
(2013Nu47001). B appealed against the above appellate judgment, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on December 24, 2014.
(2014du41725). e.
On January 7, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke permission for naturalization indicated in Paragraph (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff is a child of a false person acquiring nationality, and publicly notified it in the Official Gazette on January 13, 2016.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 did not give prior notice under Article 21 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act in rendering the disposition of this case, giving an opportunity to present opinions under Article 22 (3) of the same Act, or giving an opportunity to present opinions under Article 21 (2) of the Nationality Act and Article 27 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.