2016Guhap85422 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Permission for naturalization

1. A;

2. B

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Kang Sung-sik

The Minister of Justice

September 19, 2017

November 3, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's disposition of revocation of permission of naturalization rendered to the plaintiffs on November 22, 2016 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C (hereinafter referred to as "C") entered the Republic of Korea on December 9, 191 with the nationality of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "C") with a passport (hereinafter referred to as "C") stating the personal information of "D (E-7)". From March 9, 1992, C had been illegally staying after the period of stay granted at the time of entry, and voluntarily staying on February 8, 1998. C entered the Republic of Korea on August 25, 1999 with a visa issued on August 25, 199, stating the personal information of "C (C and E-S)" (hereinafter referred to as "the passport 2"), and stayed as a specific status of stay (E-7) on May 19, 2014.

B. Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”) entered the Republic of Korea with C’s spouse on April 27, 2001 by inviting C to obtain the nationality of the Republic of Korea (general naturalization) on May 19, 2014. Plaintiff B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff2”) was born in Pakistan on the F date as a child between C and Plaintiff 1, and entered the Republic of Korea on February 14, 2010, and acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea on December 30, 2015 on the ground that father C is a national of the Republic of Korea (Article 7 of the Nationality Act). The Defendant illegally entered the Republic of Korea within the regulation period for visa issuance using the passport No. 1 and 2 passport whose personal information otherwise stated, and obtained permission for naturalization and disposition for naturalization and disposition for the Plaintiffs (Article 21 of the Nationality Act, Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act, Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 127(1)26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 22, 43, 44, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) A public official in charge of C’s passport No. 1 entered incomplete personal information, and thereafter C entered the Republic of Korea with a passport No. 2 that properly stated his/her personal information, and thus, C cannot be deemed to be responsible for using two passports. Moreover, the Plaintiffs did not know that C used the passport No. 1 in the past and did not illegally stay in the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs did not obtain permission of naturalization as “any false or other unlawful means” stipulated in Article 21 of the Nationality Act.

(2) The instant disposition, which led to the instant disposition, is highly likely to cause the infringement of private interests by preventing any further suicide in the Republic of Korea in which the Plaintiffs formed and live the basis of living. As such, the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Determination

(1) The existence of grounds for revocation of naturalization

(A) Before the lapse of two years from the regulatory period for visa issuance due to illegal stay (use of passport 1), Plaintiff 1 obtained the status of sojourn for specific activities (E-7) by entering the Republic of Korea using the passport 2 passport, and Plaintiff 1 obtained the status of sojourn for being accompanied (F-3) by C with a specific activity (E-7) status of sojourn for a spouse of C with a specific activity (E-7) status of sojourn for a visa issuance period. C, if the Defendant became aware of the illegal entry and stay in the Republic of Korea within the regulatory period for visa issuance, the specific activity (E-7) status of sojourn for Plaintiff 1 was not granted, and Plaintiff 1’s accompanying (F-3) status of sojourn is accompanied by C’s status of sojourn for a specific activity (E-7) and Plaintiff 1’s accompanying (F-3) status of sojourn for a visa issuance, and thus, Plaintiff 1 was not legally granted the status of sojourn for naturalization under Article 12(1) and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act for a significant reason that it did not meet the requirements for naturalization.

(A) As seen earlier, Plaintiff 2 cannot be deemed lawful status of stay for specific activities (E-7). As such, C ought to be deemed to have failed to legitimately meet the period of stay, which is the general naturalization requirement, and the permission for naturalization to C was revoked on November 22, 2016. As seen earlier, Plaintiff 2 acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea as a child of the Republic of Korea on the premise that C duly satisfies the general naturalization requirement and is a national of the Republic of Korea, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 2 were not duly satisfied the requirements for special naturalization (the national of the Republic of Korea) insofar as C does not legitimately meet the general naturalization requirement. Plaintiff 2 also suffered significant defect in the judgment of naturalization, and the permission for naturalization was conducted by false or other unlawful means. Accordingly, there exists grounds for revocation of permission for naturalization as prescribed in Article 21 of the Nationality Act and Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 29, 45, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power even when considering the circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs.

(1) Where the nature of permission for naturalization, which comprehensively establishes a legal status as a national of the Republic of Korea by granting the nationality of the Republic of Korea, does not require the establishment of standards for the procedures for applying for naturalization because of the error in the permission process, and such defect is not corrected, confusion may occur due to the collapse of consistency in administration, and the method of illegal naturalization is massed, thereby causing serious harm to the naturalization administration.

② Plaintiff 2, as a minor attending an elementary school, may stay in the Republic of Korea until he/she graduated from a high school with a humanitarian stay status granted until he/she graduated from a high school. When entering a university or college, he/she may stay in the Republic of Korea after obtaining the status of stay for studying at the university or college, and Plaintiff 1 is operating the practice so that he/she can stay together with Plaintiff 2 upon obtaining the humanitarian stay

③ Defendant: (a) If an applicant for permission of naturalization after acquiring the nationality under the name of the principal, but whose nationality had been revoked but there was a humanitarian reason, applies for permission of naturalization after obtaining the permission of naturalization, the internal guidelines are implemented to calculate the starting point of the period of residence from the date of entry (the date of starting the starting point of the date of entry at the time of acquiring the nationality of the country). Thus, even if the applicant again applies for permission of naturalization, if the applicant falls under the requirements of permission of naturalization, he/she may obtain permission of naturalization (the Plaintiff 1 cannot satisfy the requirements of living (property above 60 million won) and cannot be issued as the current stateless status because he/she cannot again file an application for permission of naturalization. However, Plaintiff 1’s sojourn status (F1-99) is exceptionally permissible for commercial activity; Plaintiff 1’s spouse is holding the asset of the Republic of Korea within the Republic of Korea; the Defendant does not seem to be impossible to apply for permission of naturalization again in light of the fact that Plaintiff 1’s internal guidelines to exempt the applicant

4. Conclusion

Thus, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, the Korean Judge;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Lee Jae-he

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.