1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff, who is a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), entered the Republic of Korea on September 12, 2004 for the first time.

On August 6, 2009, the Plaintiff was married with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on June 4, 2009, and was granted the status of stay for marriage immigrants (title F-2, and spouse of the Republic of Korea were subject to the former status of stay for residence (mark F-6) but the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 23274 on November 1, 201 (Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act December 15, 2011). As such, the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act was amended and implemented on June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was granted the status of stay for marriage immigrants (mark F-6).

On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for simplified naturalization pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Nationality Act, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of denial of naturalization (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff is unable to maintain his/her livelihood.

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff has the ability to maintain his livelihood, and the defendant issued the disposition of this case by misunderstanding the plaintiff's ability to maintain livelihood

The instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

In fact, the plaintiff is living together with his spouse in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 108 Dong 109.

The above apartment house is an apartment house leased by the plaintiff's spouse of KRW 2,230,00, monthly rent of KRW 39,540.

According to the Defendant’s report on the results of the fact-finding survey on the applicant’s nationality on August 16, 2013, the balance of the Plaintiff’s passbook is KRW 3,586,031, and the balance of the spouse’s passbook is KRW 1,166,067, and a passenger car (type A: A) in the name of the spouse is paid.

According to the above fact-finding report, the plaintiff is stated as having been receiving KRW 800,000 per month salary from the restaurant "D".

The plaintiff is working for the restaurant "E" from November 17, 2014.