1. On February 20, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-acceptance of report of choosing nationality against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is born by father D and mother E with the nationality of the Republic of Korea in B, U.S. S. S. S. P, and is a dual nationality holder who has acquired both the nationality of the Republic of Korea and the U.S. nationality.

The Plaintiff completed the military service in active service from April 22, 2013 to January 21, 2015.

On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on choosing the nationality of the Republic of Korea along with a written pledge not to exercise a foreign nationality pursuant to the proviso to Article 13(2) of the Nationality Act.

(hereinafter “the instant report”). On February 20, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was unable to accept the instant report on the ground that “The Plaintiff was born while the Plaintiff was pregnant and staying in the United States for the purpose of acquiring the Plaintiff’s U.S. nationality after having left the Republic of Korea for the purpose of acquiring the Plaintiff’s U.S. nationality. Therefore, Article 13(3) of the Nationality Act provides that the Plaintiff shall report to the effect that the Plaintiff would choose the nationality of the Republic of Korea after having renounced his foreign nationality.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision on June 19, 2018, and the Plaintiff was served with the said dismissal ruling on July 20, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 11 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of whole pleadings shall be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

The plaintiff's misunderstanding of facts merely started studying to complete the doctoral degree course in the United States, and the plaintiff did not have the purpose of acquiring foreign nationality at the time of giving birth to the plaintiff, i.e., the original childbirth, but the defendant was judged to have been staying in the United States for the purpose of the original childbirth and thus the report of this case was not accepted. Thus, the disposition of this case was erroneous in matters of law.

the exercise of discretionary power;