1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2, 1961, the Plaintiff was born in the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China") and acquired Chinese nationality, and entered the Republic of Korea on October 22, 2008, after completing the marriage report with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea on October 22, 2008, with the status of stay on January 30, 2009 (F-2).

B. On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a simplified naturalization pursuant to Article 6 of the Nationality Act (hereinafter “Act”) as indicated in the following table:

(hereinafter “instant application for simplified naturalization”. The residence period of the Republic of Korea: from January 31, 2009, the reason for naturalization for a total of two years from January 31, 2009 to the present: I would like to live together with her husband and in the Republic of Korea.

C. On June 21, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act due to the Plaintiff’s lack of normal marital life requirements.

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff failed to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship with B, and thus, did not meet the requirements under Article 6(1) of the Nationality Act.

Although it is recognized that at the time of the instant disposition, the marriage relationship between the Plaintiff and B was broken down at the time of the instant disposition and the divorce lawsuit was in existence, B submitted a withdrawal letter of fidelity guarantee against the Plaintiff on February 27, 2013, which was the prior disposition, on the ground that the Plaintiff was withdrawn from the guarantee of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was withdrawn from the guarantee of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was withdrawn from the guarantee of the Defendant, the Defendant should have examined the developments leading up to the withdrawal of the Plaintiff, and confirmed whether the grounds for the

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) the attached Form of the relevant statute;