1. The Defendant’s disposition of revocation of permission of naturalization rendered against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2013 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 1999, the plaintiff was a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China") who entered the Republic of Korea through Busan Port and was voluntarily reported on May 10, 2002 and was granted the departure period until February 7, 2003, but it was discovered that he did not leave the Republic of Korea by the above departure period and was found to have stayed illegally until the above departure period, and was subject to the deportation and entry control for 5 years from the head of the Mapo Immigration Office on October 2, 2004. The plaintiff left the Republic of China on October 15, 2004.

B. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on Nov. 8, 2005 and filed a marriage report with F who is a national of the Republic of Korea on Jul. 26, 2005, although the name of China’s Ho-gu Injury was “C” and the date of birth was “D”. However, the Plaintiff obtained a passport issued in the name of A (A, A, and E).

C. On December 24, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for simplified naturalization under Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on the ground that his spouse is a national of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant application”), and the Defendant permitted naturalization of the Plaintiff on December 9, 2009.

On November 12, 2013, the Defendant revoked the permission for naturalization of the Plaintiff on the ground of “acquisition of nationality of the Republic of Korea by submitting false identification-related documents” pursuant to Article 21 of the Nationality Act and Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(See Evidence Nos. 5-1, hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not a false document, since the Plaintiff, while making a new name in China through lawful procedures, corrected the indication of the date of birth from both physical strength to sound history. Thus, the Plaintiff’s name is the Maho-gu, whose date of birth is A and E, an application for permission of naturalization, and a statement of naturalization, etc.

In addition, the plaintiff maintains a genuine marital relationship with F who is a national of the Republic of Korea at the time of the application of this case.