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, who was a national of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”), was staying in Korea as of September 19, 2006 in the capacity of visit and residence (F-1) and left Korea on September 17, 2009. On December 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was staying in Korea as an overseas Korean (F-4) from July 13, 201 and was staying in Korea as of December 13, 201.

B. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to recover nationality with the Defendant, claiming that he/she was a foreigner who was a former national of the Republic of Korea. However, on January 19, 2015, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that he/she failed to meet the requirements under Article 9 of the Nationality Act on the ground that “documents expenses, good and good behavior, illegal stay experience, and false invitation experience,” etc.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant disposition does not specify the grounds for disposition, and there is procedural defect. 2) The Plaintiff’s reference is B, a Korean national.

The reason why the plaintiff's children submitted documents in order to obtain the status of stay and entered C as a kind of friendship is that the plaintiff's children are also referred to C as they are adopted in the house of Seoul at the time of the plaintiff's expiration.

The plaintiff is a person who was a national of the Republic of Korea at the time of birth, and the recovery of nationality is illegal on the ground that such relationship is unclear.

4. Among the grounds for the disposition of this case, the expenses of documents and the period of false invitation shall not fall under the grounds for non-permission of reinstatement of nationality.

In addition, the plaintiff's illegal stay experience is limited to minor extent in light of its circumstances and period, and since the plaintiff's illegal stay experience was adopted at the house of Section C when the plaintiff goes on, it is so document.