1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 23, 2010, the Plaintiff respectively acquired the status of non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn on March 3, 2015, the status of specific activities (E-7), the status of stay on October 17, 2016, and the status of stay on October 18, 2017 (G-1).

B. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for general naturalization with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant rendered a ruling of denying the Plaintiff’s naturalization on May 31, 2017, and notified the Plaintiff of the ruling of refusing naturalization on September 22, 2017, on the ground of the lack of ability to maintain the livelihood.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists on the ground of denial of naturalization such as the above / [the ground of recognition], Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff submitted documents verifying the balance of deposits in excess of KRW 30 million under Article 3(2)2(a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Nationality Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 851, Nov. 11, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Nationality Act”) at the time of the Plaintiff’s application for the instant lawsuit. Since the Plaintiff was in office in B, the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for maintaining livelihood required by the relevant provisions.

However, during the period of delay, the general naturalization screening procedure against the plaintiff was delayed for a long time, and the plaintiff was forced to retire in B, and the property in possession was also reduced to less than 30 million won.

Ultimately, even though the Plaintiff had the ability to maintain livelihood at the time of the instant application, the instant disposition that the Defendant had to take after a long period of time from the date of the instant application, thereby failing to meet the above requirements. Therefore, the instant disposition that did not consider such circumstances is unlawful as it was an abuse of the Defendant’s discretionary power.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. On July 29, 201, the Plaintiff was aware of the recognition on July 29, 201.