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

A. The plaintiff was a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"). Around June 1999, the plaintiff filed a marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea at the International Marriage Registry in China's roadside. On July 23, 1999, the plaintiff filed the same marriage report with B on the same content in the Family Register of the Office of Gender Equality (hereinafter "China").

(hereinafter “instant marriage report”). B.

On November 23, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for simplified naturalization pursuant to Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act with the Defendant on the ground that his spouse is a national of the Republic of Korea. On October 7, 2002, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff’s naturalization.

(hereinafter “instant permission of naturalization”). C.

On April 14, 2003, the Plaintiff got a divorce by agreement with B.

On August 13, 2004, the Plaintiff was convicted on August 13, 2004 by the Incheon District Court on the charge that “The Plaintiff had been convicted of having a false fact entered in the family register by reporting the instant marriage and exercised it,” and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 21st of the same month.

(In the case of this case, the High Court 2004 Highest 3004, hereinafter referred to as the “instant conviction”) d.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff reported marriage with D on March 19, 2010.

E. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the instant permission for naturalization pursuant to Article 21 of the Nationality Act and Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act on the ground that “acquisition of nationality of the Republic of Korea by marriage” against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition was made pursuant to Article 21 of the Nationality Act, which did not exist at the time of the Plaintiff’s report of marriage and conviction, and Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act, and thus, is null and void due to a serious and obvious defect (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”).

(ii) 2.