1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 27, 2001, the plaintiff of the disposition as the Pakistan (Skististan) shall make a foreigner registration, and on December 15, 2003, the plaintiff is married with the spouse B of the Republic of Korea and resides in the Republic of Korea.

On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the Defendant. On August 2, 2018, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for “a conclusive judgment of good conduct” under Article 5 subparag. 3 of the Nationality Act, in light of the Plaintiff’s criminal history, details of tax failure, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she had lived faithfully with his/her spouse and children in the Republic of Korea; (b) the Plaintiff’s criminal record or tax delinquency record was minor due to negligence; and (c) the Plaintiff acquired the permanent residence right demanding the Plaintiff to conclude a good conduct after the instant disposition, the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing discretion.

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

C. Determination 1) The relevant legal doctrine refers to “a person who has character and behavior that would not hamper the acceptance of an applicant for naturalization as a new member of the Republic of Korea.” Specifically, such legal doctrine ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the gender, age, occupation, family, career, and criminal record of the applicant for naturalization (see Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunBa421, Jul. 28, 2016). In particular, not only whether the applicant merely committed a crime with respect to criminal records, but also the contents of the crime, the degree of punishment, the circumstances at the time of the crime and after the crime, and the period from the date of the crime to the date of disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du59420, Dec. 22, 2017). In cases where the applicant for naturalization fails to meet the naturalization requirements under each subparagraph of Article 5 of the Nationality Act, the Minister of Justice shall take into account the following factors: