1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Details of the issuance of the Plaintiff’s previous passport and English name (referring to the name written in the Roman; hereinafter the same shall apply) recorded therein are as follows:

The date of the issuance of English name stated in B No. 1 B on April 4, 1996 and the date of the issuance of the English name stated in B on January 13, 1999, which was lost on February 26, 199 on January 13, 199, and lost on February 26, 2004, 3 C C C C on February 27, 2009, and on August 25, 201, 201, C C on August 25, 2015, August 13, 2015.

On September 24, 2015, after the term of validity of a passport issued on August 13, 2014 expires, the Plaintiff applied for the reissuance of a passport to the Defendant for the change of English name into D.

C. On December 18, 2015, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the Plaintiff’s English name “E” indicated in the passport does not constitute “where the English name stated in the passport does not clearly coincide with that of his Korean name” under Article 3-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act, and that the Plaintiff’s application does not constitute the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of the same paragraph.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for adjudication seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the petition on April 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to Articles 11(1) and 7(1) of the Passport Act, if the change of English name in the passport is needed, the restriction of the delegation for each of the following reasons is in violation of the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation, as it deviates from the delegation limit. 2) The Plaintiff first enters into the passport at the time of issuance of the passport.