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 person of the nationality of the People’s Republic of China born (hereinafter “China”).

The plaintiff completed a marriage report with C who is a national of the Republic of Korea on October 22, 2001, and entered the Republic of Korea on December 8, 2001, and has been residing in the Republic of Korea from that time until that time.

On November 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim for divorce against C with the Incheon District Court, and on June 23, 2010, the divorce was concluded and divorced with C.

B. On July 3, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for permission for simplified naturalization pursuant to Article 6(2)3 of the Nationality Act to the Defendant.

On November 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the Plaintiff’s simple naturalization (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not genuine of marriage, and does not meet the requirements attributable to the spouse regarding the termination of marriage.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On October 22, 2001, the Plaintiff asserted that he was married with C on October 22, 2001 with the genuine intention of marriage, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was married with C at C’s home and began the marital life.

However, at the time of marriage, C and the Si parents concealed C’s mental retardation disorder to the Plaintiff; while living a married life, the Si parents supervised the Plaintiff and her personal maternity to the Plaintiff; around March 8, 2002, the Si parents died from her house while saving and staying away from the Plaintiff; and around November 2009, C and C returned to China due to the cause attributable to C and C’s parents, which led to the failure of marriage.

Thus, the plaintiff should be deemed to meet the requirements for simplified naturalization under Article 6 (2) 3 of the Nationality Act.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which rejected the plaintiff's simple naturalization, is erroneous in misconception of facts or in violation of the principle of proportionality.