logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.18 2019누36874
국적이탈신고 반려처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 14, 1998, the Plaintiff’s father B entered the doctorate degree course of D University’s college in the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S.”) on September 5, 1998, after the Plaintiff’s mother married with C.

B. On July 2001, C gave birth to the Plaintiff in the U.S., and B obtained a doctorate from D University and served as a researcher, and was employed as a professor of F University in Daejeon on February 2002 as a professor of F University. The Plaintiff’s family returned to Korea at around that time.

C. From February 2002, the Plaintiff graduated from a kindergarten and an elementary school located in Daejeon and moved to the United States on July 17, 2013, while attending a middle school.

B and C filed an application for the acquisition of permanent sovereignty immediately after emigration, and purchased a house from the tex of the United States on November 7, 2013, and reside in the United States until now after acquiring the permanent residency of the United States on November 2, 2016.

On July 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the renunciation of nationality under Article 14 of the Nationality Act in the status of a person with multiple nationality born between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America.

E. On June 4, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission for renunciation of nationality on the ground that “A male, who was born by his father or mother while staying in a foreign country for the purpose of permanent residence, and became a multiple national, may file a declaration of renunciation of nationality even before March 31 of the year in which the father or mother turns 18 years of age, but does not constitute the Plaintiff,” on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for report of renunciation of nationality under Article 12(3) of the Nationality Act, Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act, Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Nationality Act.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number, if any)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

arrow