beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff married Nonparty B, who is a national of the People’s Republic of China, on February 27, 2008.
B. On February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for simplified naturalization under Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act with the Defendant, but the Defendant decided to deny the application on October 8, 2015 on the ground of “criminal history and good behavior.”
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s 1 to 6 evidence, Eul’s 1 to 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was subject to criminal punishment on the ground that he/she got a disguised marriage with Nonparty C in 2005 for the purpose of entry into the Republic of Korea, but this is not only based on false reports, but also based on the Plaintiff’s normal family life through marriage with Nonparty B. Thus, the Plaintiff’s refusal of good conduct under Article 5 subparag. 3 of the Nationality Act constitutes a misapprehension of legal principles or abuse of discretionary authority.
(b) Entry in the attached statutes of the relevant statutes;
C. Article 6(2) and Article 5 subparag. 3 of the Nationality Act provides that “one of the requirements for simplified naturalization shall be determined by good conduct.” In full view of various circumstances, such as the relevant foreigner’s gender, age, occupation, family, career, and criminal history, this means that the foreigner is recognized as a member of the Korean community and act with character that does not interfere with the foreigner’s acceptance as a sovereign. On the other hand, permission for naturalization is a comprehensive creation of legal status as a citizen by granting the foreigner’s nationality in the Republic of Korea, and the defendant has extensive discretion as to whether to permit naturalization (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du6496, Oct. 28, 2010).