The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

the circumstances of the disposition;

2. Relevant statutes,

3. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the Defendant’s defense are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The term “application for a national ruling” in the second and fifth sentence of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to read “application for a national ruling”, and the sixth and seventh sentence shall read “A person who has acquired the Chinese nationality through a father who was a Chinese nationality” in the sixth and seventh sentence “A person who has acquired the Chinese nationality” shall be deemed to read “A lack of North Korean certification” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “China’s nationality before and after the People’s Republic of China”).

The following shall be added to six pages 10:

Where both parents or one parent of Article 5 or one of them is a Chinese national, they shall have Chinese nationality even after they were born in a foreign country: Provided, That where both parents or one parent is a Chinese national and reside in a foreign country, they shall not have Chinese nationality at the same time when they reside in the foreign country.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s primary assertion ① The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s relocation from the Dogju to China during the Japanese occupation period (hereinafter “this State”) was used to mean not only as a legitimate interest, but also as a non-legal entry, etc.

In addition, the plaintiff's father B, born in the C-day Chinese roadside, has moved to North Korea in 1959, acquired North Korean nationality, and the plaintiff was born in the Yellow Seari-si of the D-day.

Therefore, the plaintiff, who is a child of North Korean nationality B, acquired North Korean nationality at the same time as his birth.

② Since North Korean nationals constitute a Korean national, the Plaintiff constitutes a Korean national.

Therefore, the instant disposition that is based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a national of the Republic of Korea is unlawful.