귀화불허처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On March 26, 2006, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of Mongolian nationality, entered the Republic of Korea with the short-term comprehensive (C-3) sojourn status on June 12, 2006, and acquired the general training (D-4), the status of study abroad (D-2), the status of study abroad (D-2), the status of employment on September 17, 2012 (D-10), and the status of sojourn on September 22, 2014 (F-1).
On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for general naturalization with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant notified the Defendant that he/she would be denied the Plaintiff’s naturalization on May 19, 2016 due to lack of ability to maintain his/her livelihood.
(2) If the Plaintiff submitted documents evidencing balance of deposits worth at least KRW 30 million as stipulated in Article 3(2)2(a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Nationality Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 851, Nov. 11, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Nationality Act”) at the time of the instant application, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate as to the entirety of the pleadings and the overall purport of the argument by Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14, and Eul’s evidence No. 1, 14, and Eul’s overall purport of the instant disposition, was met.
I would like to say.
The above Enforcement Rule does not provide that the balance of deposits worth at least KRW 30 million shall be maintained until the disposition is made, and since the defendant did not publicly notify such details on the website, it is unlawful for the defendant to determine that the defendant is not capable of maintaining his livelihood to the plaintiff on the ground that he did not have the balance of deposits at least KRW 30 million at the time of the disposition in this case.
The Plaintiff was granted the status of stay for a visit (F-1) in which employment is impossible upon the instant application. Since the Plaintiff could not engage in occupational activities in order to avoid violating the scope of activities prescribed by the above status of stay, the existence of the Plaintiff’s ability to maintain livelihood ought to be determined by more relaxed standards.
The Plaintiff at the time of the instant disposition.