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

A. The Plaintiff, as a citizen of the United States of America (hereinafter “US”), is currently staying in the Republic of Korea.

B. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to recover nationality with the Defendant pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Nationality Act. However, on July 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the application (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 8, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, regardless of his own will, went to the United States around 1985 by his parent. The only reason for acquiring citizen's right was to attract marriage with a woman in Korea to the United States, and there was no purpose of evading military service at the time. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The plaintiff, as the plaintiff on June 20, 1968, moved to the United States on July 20, 1985, acquired the citizenship of the United States on October 11, 1995, and lost the citizenship of the Republic of Korea on July 15, 2002.

2) The Plaintiff’s individual entry and departure status is as follows.

On July 20, 1987, July 10, 1987, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea on July 20, 1985, U.S., on September 1, 1987, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea, included in the main sentence of this Act, and on June 28, 1992, the United States on March 26, 1992, Dec. 21, 1994, the United States on May 12, 1995, on May 12, 1995, the United States on June 21, 1995, on Nov. 3, 1996, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14487, Feb. 3, 1996; Presidential Decree No. 155687, Jun. 30, 199; Presidential Decree No. 15687, Jul. 37, 20197>

3) In around 1987, the Plaintiff postponed the draft physical on the grounds of immigration abroad, but was removed from the family register on July 10, 1998 after being removed from the family register.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 9(1) of the Nationality Act provides that a foreigner, who was a national of the Republic of Korea, may obtain nationality of the Republic of Korea after obtaining permission from the defendant. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the defendant, after examining the application for permission for the recovery of nationality, shall not permit the recovery of nationality in cases of a person who has inflicted harm on the State or society (No. 1), a person who has lost or deserted the nationality of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of evading military service (No. 2), a person who has lost or deserted the nationality of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of evading military service (No. 3), or a person who is recognized as inappropriate for permission for the recovery of nationality for the purpose of national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare (No. 4). However, nationality is determined at the same time as the national becomes a sovereign of the State, and the person who acquired it constitutes an act of comprehensively establishing the legal status as a national of the Republic of Korea by granting nationality to a foreigner, and there is no provision that the foreigner has granted the right to recover nationality of the Republic of the Republic of Korea to anywhere.

In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether the Plaintiff had the purpose of evading military service at the time when he loses the citizenship of the Republic of Korea, and the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s male who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea, is transferred to the first citizen service from the age of 18 to the first citizen service (Article 8 of the Military Service Act); the Plaintiff transferred to the United States one year prior to the transfer to the first citizen service; ② the Plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea on November 7, 1995, before the Plaintiff acquired the citizenship; ③ the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea four times prior to the acquisition of the citizenship of the United States and stayed in the Republic of Korea for a short period of three months after his entry into the Republic of Korea. However, the Plaintiff was exempted from military service under Article 9 of the Nationality Act, including the Plaintiff’s remaining in the Republic of Korea on July 24, 197, when he acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Korea during the period of two years after his acquisition of the citizenship, and the Plaintiff was exempted from military service.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Yoon Gyeong-do (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Since the date of the disposition stated in the complaint’s purport is deemed to be a clerical error, it shall be corrected ex officio.