beta
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. Nonparty B submitted to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on June 8, 1995 the complaint that the Plaintiff and Nonparty B conspiredd with the Plaintiff to borrow KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff and acquired it by deception (hereinafter “the complaint of this case”). On August 23, 1995, the Plaintiff was subject to the suspension of prosecution by the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office on the following grounds:
(The facts of suspicion of fraud are as shown in Appendix 1). (b)
On April 3, 2016, the Plaintiff, a national of the Republic of Korea who currently resides in California, applied for the reissuance of a passport to the Defendant through the U.S. sandfcco General.
C. On May 18, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his refusal to apply for the reissuance of a passport on the ground that the Plaintiff was aware of the suspension of indictment by fraud in the course of an identity investigation against the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff constitutes grounds under Article 12(1)1 of the Passport Act (a person whose indictment was suspended due to an escape abroad after committing a crime corresponding to a punishment for a maximum of three years or more).
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of Refusal of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) Article 12 (1) 1 of the Passport Act provides that the Minister of Foreign Affairs may refuse to file an application based on the responsibility of the applicant for re-issuance of a passport (the crime liability of the applicant for re-issuance of a passport) even though the conviction was not finalized against the person whose indictment was suspended due to the crime corresponding to the punishment for a maximum of three years or more, and violates the presumption of innocence under the Constitution, and leaves room for arbitrary interpretation by using the ambiguous concept of "a crime corresponding to the punishment for a long term of three years or more" and "a crime corresponding to the punishment for a long term of three years or more" and thus, Article 37 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Thus, the rejection disposition of this case based