1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff, who was a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), was married with B on June 21, 2002, who was a national of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter "Korea"), and entered Korea as the status of stay (F-21) on September 16, 2002 and stayed in Korea on October 26, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff was granted the status of stay on January 11, 2012 by the Marriage Division (F-63) and extended the status of stay until now, and was granted the status of stay on September 2, 2014 before the expiration date of the period of stay (F-17 September 3, 2014).

C. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for general naturalization with the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the application on September 26, 2014 on the ground that “the failure of good conduct” was “the failure of good conduct.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff violated the Immigration Control Act, but this is merely a minor violation, and there is no criminal power except that.

In addition, while the plaintiff actually maintained a marital life with B, the plaintiff was legally divorced due to the gambling problem of B.

Although there are these circumstances, the defendant made the disposition of this case on the grounds that it was a bad behavior, it is illegal that the decision was made on the grounds of disposition, or it was abused or abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The Plaintiff had the record of filing an application for naturalization with the Defendant prior to the instant disposition.

On January 17, 2005, the date of decision on the contents of the application is non-existent, and on November 23, 2007, the date of decision on the contents of the application was rejected on June 20, 2007, which did not meet the requirements such as non-permission and respondent on October 30, 2009 of the non-permission of marriage on December 30, 2009, which was non-permission of marriage; and on August 27, 2014, the plaintiff was disqualified on August 31, 2012 on August 31, 2012.