1. The Defendant’s disposition of denying an application for naturalization rendered to the Plaintiff on January 29, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a man with the nationality of Ethiopia born B.

On September 10, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay of short-term comprehensive (C-3) prescribed in Article 12 and [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19904, Feb. 28, 2007).

On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status in accordance with the Refugee Act. However, around September 30, 2008, the Plaintiff was decided to deny refugee status, and thereafter, the Plaintiff had been living in the Republic of Korea with a humanitarian stay permit in accordance with the Refugee Act from December 9, 2008.

B. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission of general naturalization with the Defendant. The Plaintiff failed to pass the written examination and was dismissed on March 25, 2014.

On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed an application for permission of general naturalization to the Defendant.

On January 29, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the ruling not to grant permission of the above general naturalization by stating that “the foregoing general naturalization is not permitted” as a ground for non-permission.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion obtained a humanitarian stay permit in 2008, and has not been able to legally stay in the Republic of Korea until now, and has not been illegally staying there.

The plaintiff is growing five children who are married in the Republic of Korea and have been living in the Republic of Korea, and is faithfully living in Macheon for more than five years from 2011, and its income leads to the family's livelihood independent and stable.

Although the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's conduct of violation of the Immigration Control Act was not decent on the ground that the plaintiff committed three times, the plaintiff did not know about the language and environment of the Republic of Korea and did not know it.