[1] The meaning of Article 13 of the former Nationality Act

[2] The case holding that a person who had already acquired the United States nationality at the same time as that of the Republic of Korea upon birth of a national of the Republic of Korea in the United States of America by father shall still hold the Republic of Korea nationality in accordance with Article 13 of the former Nationality Act even if he/she had lost his/her additional nationality while acquiring

[3] Whether the nationality of the Republic of Korea is lost only by the court's decision that "a report of loss of nationality is accepted" or by the registration of loss of nationality on the family register (negative)

[1] The provisions of Article 13 of the former Nationality Act (amended by Act No. 5431 of Dec. 13, 1997) shall be interpreted to be null and void if the wife or minor child of a person who has lost his nationality acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea together with or subsequent to the person who has lost his nationality.

[2] The case holding that even if a person who had already acquired the nationality of the United States of America at the same time as that of the Republic of Korea upon birth of a national of the Republic of Korea in the United States of America by his father, loses his additional nationality of the Republic of Korea, he still holds the nationality of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 13 of the former Nationality Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5431 of Dec. 13, 197)

[3] Registration or deletion on a family register is not an act of creating the effect of the acquisition of nationality, but is merely an act of procedurally arranging the matters concerning the acquisition of nationality formed under the Nationality Act. Thus, the registration or deletion on a family register does not lose the nationality of the Republic of Korea only by the court's decision that "a report of loss of nationality is accepted" or by the registration of loss of nationality on the family register based on the decision of the court.

[1] Article 13 of the former Nationality Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5431 of Dec. 13, 1997) (see current Article 15 (2) 4) / [2] Article 13 of the former Nationality Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5431 of Dec. 13, 1997) (see current Article 15 (2) 4) / [3] Article 12 (see current Article 15), Article 13 (see current Article 15 (2) 4) of the former Nationality Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5431 of Dec. 13, 1997)

Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2005Na1000 decided May 2, 200)

The Minister of Justice

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu16134 delivered on September 26, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below is reasonable to interpret that the provision of Article 13 of the former Nationality Act (amended by Act No. 5431, Dec. 13, 1997; hereinafter the same applies) "if the wife or minor child of a male who has lost the nationality of the Republic of Korea acquires the nationality of the Republic of Korea, he shall lose the nationality of the Republic of Korea." If the wife or minor child of the person who has lost the nationality of the Republic of Korea for reasons stated in its reasoning acquires the nationality of the Republic of Korea together with or subsequent to the male, he shall lose the nationality of the Republic of Korea. However, if the plaintiff was born at the New York Victori 190 of the Republic of Korea on November 20, 197 and had already acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea at the same time as that of the Republic of Korea, his father was not deprived of the nationality of the Republic of Korea on January 13, 197, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 13 of the former Nationality Act.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different cases, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to Article 8 (1) of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 4685 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 12 and Article 14 of the Nationality Act (amended by Act No. 5431 of Dec. 13, 1997; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 5 of the Addenda, and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the court below determined that the plaintiff who acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea and the nationality of the United States of America as a dual national who acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea before June 14, 1998 as the enforcement date of the Nationality Act shall be deemed to have completed or exempted from active duty service, full-time reserve service, or replacement service, or who was transferred to the second citizen service after being transferred to the Minister of Justice after being transferred to the second citizen service, the plaintiff shall lose the nationality of the Republic of Korea only by reporting that the plaintiff has retired from the nationality after completing the above military service.

In light of the records and relevant statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to retroactive application of military service duty as otherwise alleged.

3. The registration or deletion on the family register does not act as a creation of the effect of the acquisition of nationality, but is merely an act of procedurally arranging matters concerning the acquisition of nationality formed under the Nationality Act. Thus, it shall not be said that the plaintiff's nationality is lost only by the Seoul Family Court's decision that "the head of Dongjak-gu accepts a report of loss of nationality on the ground of the plaintiff's loss of nationality on January 13, 1976," or by registering the loss of nationality on the family register based on the decision of the Seoul Family Court's decision that "the head of Dongjak-gu shall accept the report of loss of nationality on the ground of the plaintiff's loss of nationality on the ground of the latter.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)