국적신청불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On June 1, 2001, the Plaintiff, who entered the Republic of Pakistan, and stayed in the Republic of Korea as a trade management qualification (D-8-1) and applied for naturalization to the Defendant on November 5, 2015, but failed to pass the first interview on June 28, 2018.
After conducting the second interview on December 14, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s naturalization (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on December 20, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to pass the interview.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority in the following respect.
1) The Plaintiff’s Enforcement Rule of the former Nationality Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 908, Aug. 29, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply)
) An immigration-based social integration program (KIIP, hereinafter referred to as “social integration program”) set forth in Article 4(1)5.
(2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had knowledge as a national of the Republic of Korea and contributed to the local community, the Plaintiff’s family member was unable to naturalization and the requirements for naturalization were more strict due to the amendment of the nationality laws and regulations, etc., even though the Plaintiff was exempted from the interview, after completing three times the eligible course for naturalization of Korean nationals, the Defendant conducted the second interview against the Plaintiff, and issued the instant disposition.
3) The Plaintiff’s punishment was exempted from a three-time interview in a social integration program and obtained permission for naturalization. The Plaintiff’s second interview was conducted only for the Plaintiff and the instant disposition was in violation of the principle of equality. (B) The relevant legal doctrine is as indicated in the relevant statutes. (c) The Plaintiff’s nationality is determined to be the citizen’s qualification, and the person who acquired the same becomes the sovereign of the State.