[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Justice

March 9, 2010

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap51400 decided August 20, 2009

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of refusing to grant permission of naturalization to the plaintiff on December 19, 2008 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (except for the part on the 3. conclusion) except for the following addition or dismissal. Thus, this court’s judgment is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ 제1심 판결문 2쪽 4째줄의 “체류자격” 뒤에 “(허가 만료일자: 2005. 9. 15.)”을, 5째줄의 “2005. 7. 11.부터” 뒤에 “2007. 3. 3.까지”를, 6째줄의 “2007. 3. 12.부터" 뒤에 ”2008. 6. 16.까지"를 각 추가한다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 2쪽 5째줄의 “E-19"를 ”E-9"로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 4쪽 6~12째줄 부분을 다음과 같이 고친다.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the Republic of Korea as a short-term comprehensive (C-3) or from June 17, 2005 to March 3, 2007 as a visiting agent (H-2) sojourn status from March 12, 2007 to June 16, 2008, and from June 26, 2008 to the time of application for simplified naturalization of this case from June 26, 2008 to the time of application for other (G-1 sojourn status) sojourn status within the Republic of Korea, it is determined that the Plaintiff lawfully resided within the Republic of Korea as at the time of the above application.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who has had a domicile in the Republic of Korea for at least three consecutive years” under Article 6(1) of the Nationality Act, and the instant disposition based on the Plaintiff’s failure to meet the above requirements is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

The defendant asserts that an application for simplified naturalization based on such status of stay cannot be accepted in light of the purport of the status of stay for other (G-1) sojourn or the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) that is recognized when a temporary stay is needed due to inevitable reasons that occurred after entry into the Republic of Korea, but limited one time to three years, considering the purpose of the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) which is limited to three years. However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, such circumstance alone is insufficient to deny the application for simplified naturalization by excluding the period of stay based on other (G-1) sojourn or the status of stay for visiting employment (H-2) from the period

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as there is no ground for appeal.

Judges Yoon Jae-ap (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-sik