(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.06.25 2015구합3379

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.06.25 2015구합3379

국적불허처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an overseas Korean of Chinese nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term comprehensive (C-3) sojourn status on March 23, 1995 and illegally stays, and was granted the status of stay of overseas Koreans (F-4) on July 15, 201.

B. On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the reinstatement of nationality. On February 27, 2014, the Defendant rejected the recovery of nationality on the grounds that the Plaintiff had criminal records, and was not decent, and that there was an illegal stay career.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion made it difficult for the plaintiff to have his/her family as an overseas Korean to enter the Republic of Korea and inevitably made an illegal stay. It was inevitable for the plaintiff to find employment at the time of illegal stay by forging his/her identification card in 2005, and it was inevitable for him/her to receive criminal punishment by unlawful exercise of his/her resident registration certificate in 201.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that did not permit the reinstatement of nationality is unlawful by abusing discretion, without considering the Plaintiff’s circumstances, on the ground that it was concluded that the conduct was not readily concluded solely on the foregoing grounds.

B. Determination of reinstatement of nationality is a disposition of nationality of the Republic of Korea again to a foreigner who was a national of the Republic of Korea, and its substantive requirements are mitigated compared to naturalization in consideration of the fact that he was a national of the Republic of Korea, but it is necessary to exclude a person who is recognized a foreigner again as a member of our community and is in danger of undermining the integration and order of the State and society. Therefore, in cases falling under any subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the Nationality Act, the defendant shall not be granted the reinstatement

Such reinstatement of nationality has a wide range of discretion to the defendant as the area of high-level policy judgment.

참조조문

-국적법 제9조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2017.11.09 2017구합66923

-서울고등법원 2017.08.17 2017누39664

-대법원 2017.12.22 2017두59420

-서울고등법원 2018.10.25 2018누59276

-대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2017두59420 판결