The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the provisions of the Passport Act and the record, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant disposition rejecting an application for reissuance of a passport, which changed the Plaintiff’s previous passport name “C” to “D,” was lawful.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the change of English name in the passport or the Romanization of Korean language.

Meanwhile, Article 3-2(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28782, Apr. 3, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 28782, Article 3-2(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28782) provides that "where the Roman’s name on the passport used when he/she is under 18 years of age continues to be used after he/she is under 18 years of age and the same Korean name is different as the Roman is to be written differently in the Roman." In addition,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.