1. On November 19, 2015, the Defendant’s rejection of naturalization against each of the Plaintiffs is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) is a foreigner of the nationality of Pakistan.

On April 26, 1999, Plaintiff 1 entered the Republic of Korea as the status of corporate investment status (D-8).

B. On January 15, 2004, Plaintiff 1 left the Republic of Korea with Pakistan and married with Pakistan E (E; hereinafter “E”) and started a marital life on April 4, 2004 after entering the Republic of Korea.

C. Plaintiff 1 and E given birth to Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”), Gios Plaintiff C (hereinafter “Plaintiff 3”), and Hios Plaintiff D (hereinafter “Plaintiff 4”) in the Republic of Korea.

On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff 1 filed an application for general naturalization pursuant to Article 5 of the Nationality Act, and Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 filed an application for the acquisition of nationality through concurrent acquisition pursuant to Article 8 of the Nationality Act on the same day. However, on November 19, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to allow the naturalization of Plaintiff 1 on the ground that “the rejection of naturalization against Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 against Plaintiff 1” was “the rejection of naturalization against Plaintiff 1 (Plaintiff 1).”

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists in the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 8 (including a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiffs 1) Plaintiff 1 (I, hereinafter “I”)

(2) Although Plaintiff 1 neglected to report the change in the name of the workplace of Plaintiff 1 from “J Co., Ltd.” to “K Co., Ltd.”, it is difficult to view Plaintiff 1 as a person whose conduct was not good on the sole ground of such minor act. Therefore, the Defendant’s conduct was not good, on the other hand, on the ground that Plaintiff 1’s conduct was not good, and thus, Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4.