Plaintiff (Attorney Hun-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Justice

November 13, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap19278 decided June 12, 2015

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim

In September 29, 2014, the decision that the defendant revoked the decision not to allow naturalization made to the plaintiff on September 29.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission of general naturalization with the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on September 26, 2014 due to the reason that the conduct of conduct is not good.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 14

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant's disposition is illegal because it does not have any grounds for disposition or deviates from or abuse of discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The nationality is determined as a citizen, and the person who acquires the nationality becomes a sovereign of the State, and at the same time becomes the subject of sovereign power of the State, permission for naturalization constitutes an act of comprehensively establishing the legal status of a citizen by granting the nationality of the Republic of Korea to a foreigner. On the other hand, no provision exists to deem that a foreigner granted the right to acquire the nationality of the Republic of Korea to anywhere in the relevant statutes, such as the Nationality Act. Considering the form and language of the provision on the basis of permission for naturalization, the content and characteristics of permission for naturalization, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant has discretion as to whether to permit naturalization even if an applicant for naturalization satisfies the requirements for naturalization (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19069,

B. The Plaintiff, from July 3, 2001 to September 7, 2003, was exempted from punishment in the process of legalizing the illegal aliens. In addition, on September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff was the first offender for committing a crime violating the Automobile Management Act by illegally using a car number plate, and was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment on the grounds that the case was minor (i.e., one to three).

In full view of these circumstances, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have the reason for the disposition of the good and good behavior group to the Plaintiff. ① After the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on March 25, 2001, the Plaintiff invested KRW 100 million on March 2, 2005 and paid value-added tax, income tax, etc. without delay in payment while operating a trade company; ② the Plaintiff started married life in the Republic of Korea and in the Republic of Korea on June 20, 201; ③ even if the Plaintiff completed the social integration program at the Ministry of Justice on November 3, 2012, it is difficult to view otherwise even if the Plaintiff completed the social integration program (Article 1 (1) 5 and (3) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Nationality Act does not exempt the requirement of conduct if the Defendant completed the stay program, but can not be exempt from a written test and an interview, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant exempted from punishment for an illegal behavior.

On the other hand, an application for naturalization is filed again by re-proofing that the Plaintiff’s character is good, since there is no limitation on frequency or time, etc., and even if the Plaintiff did not obtain permission of naturalization, he can normally stay in the Republic of Korea as a legitimate status of stay and engage in a family life and an economic life. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s disposition has

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. The judgment of the first instance, which received the plaintiff's claim, is unfair, and thus, the plaintiff's claim is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-hoon (Presiding Judge)