1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 208, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as the spouse (F-2) status of December 23, 2008, after completing a marriage report with a national C of the Republic of Korea on December 23, 2008, and changed the status of stay to the marriage immigration (F-6) on November 29, 2012.

On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for simplified naturalization with the Defendant.

C On June 10, 2014, the head of the Gwangju Immigration Office withdrawn the Plaintiff’s fidelity guarantee on the ground of “the Plaintiff withdrawn the Plaintiff’s fidelity guarantee” on June 4, 2014. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of divorce or solatium of KRW 30 million against the Plaintiff as the Gwangju Family Court 2014da32527, and on September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff, and then on September 5, 2014, the said court divorced “C and the Plaintiff,” and C confirmed that the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff, and prepared a protocol of conciliation with the content that no property claim, such as solatium and division of property.

On January 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was denied naturalization on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for normal marital life under Article 6(2)3 of the Nationality Act because the requirements for normal marital life were not satisfied.

(2) Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act provides that “The disposition of this case shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act, even if the Plaintiff asserted the validity of the disposition of this case with C at the time of the disposition of this case, even if the Plaintiff had been divorced from C at the time of the disposition of this case, as long as the Plaintiff had been married with C for more than two consecutive years, it shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act.

The plaintiff demanded that C be divided into her to receive unfair treatment, such as her husband and wife, after marriage with C, but C was refused to do so. However, the plaintiff she first tried to live at the place.