2020Nu47979. Revocation of revocation of revocation of recovery of nationality

United States A

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Hun-hoon

The Minister of Justice

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2019Guhap79718 decided June 4, 2020

oly 22, 202

2020, 11, 19

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition not to recover the nationality of the plaintiff on June 5, 2019.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted to the trial is re-examineed along with the plaintiff's assertion, the first instance judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Accordingly, the reasons for the entry in this case are as follows: “The plaintiff submitted a compliance pledge to the effect that the law of the Republic of Korea is faithfully complied with after the expiration date of his stay,” and the two times and the expiration date of his stay are also supported.” This is as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part to be determined additionally as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Judgment]

According to the statement No. 12-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 12-2 and the fact-finding by the Seoul Immigration and Foreigner Office of this Court, the Plaintiff appears to have lived in the Republic of Korea for a considerable period of one year. However, in full view of the various circumstances mentioned above, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was decent in conduct to the extent that it does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s acceptance by the members of the Republic of Korea.

In addition, Article 5 subparag. 3 of the Nationality Act, which applies to permission for naturalization to foreigners, provides that "a foreigner shall meet the requirements for a good conduct prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice," and accordingly, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Nationality Act provides that "where a certain period of time has not elapsed after being subject to criminal punishment, etc., it shall be excluded from the conclusive judgment of conduct." However, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Nationality Act provides that "the Minister of Justice shall determine whether a foreigner's conduct is good in consideration of the circumstances and frequency of violation of statutes, degree of violation of laws and subordinate statutes, degree of violation of public interest, humanitarian circumstances, and national interests" in addition to the period after the above criminal punishment has lapsed, etc.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Min Il-young

Judge Lee Jin-hun