1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a foreigner of the People's Republic of China's nationality and entered the Republic of Korea using a passport issued in the name of September 16, 1998.

C31 (Visa Issuance) Permission Date of 1 (C-3: Short-term Visits) No. 31 (C-3: Short-Term Visits) of Sep. 16, 1998 H229 (H-2: Visit) permission July 15, 201, 201, H229 (H-2: Visit Work) permission on March 24, 201, H29 (Extension of Qualification) permission February 13, 2012, H29 H29 (Extension of Qualification) permission on February 24, 2013 (Extension of Qualification) February 25, 2013, 2014, F425 (F-4: Overseas Koreans) permission on July 3 (Change of Qualification) of 14, 2014 (F-4: overseas Koreans) extension of qualification to be granted on June 18, 2014 (F-5. 206. 205. 25. 2018)

On July 7, 2011, the Seoul Immigration Control Office issued a notice of penalty of KRW 2,00,000 under Articles 24(1), 94 subparag. 16, and 102 of the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 10863, Jul. 18, 201; hereinafter “Immigration Control Act”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff voluntarily filed a report on illegal aliens on May 21, 2002 after entering the Republic of Korea using a passport issued under the name of another person, namely, “B,” and did not depart from the Republic of Korea even after being granted the preparatory period until August 31, 2003.”

Since then, the plaintiff is staying in the Republic of Korea with permission to stay as follows:

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for simplified naturalization pursuant to Article 6(1)1 of the Nationality Act with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a disposition not to permit naturalization on September 8, 2017 on the ground of “abstinence of good conduct” under Article 5 subparag. 3 of the Nationality Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no ground for disposition 1, but the Plaintiff paid the penalty once due to the violation of the Immigration Control Act, but this was based on the Plaintiff’s voluntary report, and only on the foregoing records.