1. The Defendant’s disposition of revocation of permission of naturalization rendered to the Plaintiffs on November 22, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 12, 2001, Plaintiff A (n and D) obtained the status of stay for accompanying (F31) as the spouse of E (E and F) from Pakistan, and entered the Republic of Korea on December 29, 201, and acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea after obtaining permission for naturalization under Article 5 of the Nationality Act.

B. The Plaintiff B (n, G, and H) and the Plaintiff C (H) were born between Plaintiff A and E with the nationality of Pakistan.

Plaintiff

B On June 2, 2015, Plaintiff A, a mother of the Republic of Korea, obtained permission for special naturalization pursuant to Article 7 of the Nationality Act on the ground that he/she is a national of the Republic of Korea, and Plaintiff C obtained the nationality of the Republic of Korea on December 29, 2013 by permission for general naturalization pursuant to Article 8 of the Nationality Act.

C. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant revoked each disposition of permission for naturalization against the Plaintiffs based on Article 21(1) of the Nationality Act and Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that there was a serious defect in the disposition of permission for naturalization against the Plaintiffs under Article 2016-346 of the Ministry of Justice’s notification.

(Disposition of Revocation of Permission for naturalization to Plaintiffs is "the Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for Recognition] without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful. (A) The Plaintiffs acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea by satisfying each naturalization requirement with the knowledge of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea by using another’s passport. As such, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have acquired the nationality by “any false or other unlawful means” under Article 21(1) of the Nationality Act, or there is no “serious defect” under Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act regarding permission for naturalization received by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the instant disposition does not exist, even if there is no legal basis, the Defendant may revoke the instant disposition ex officio without a separate legal basis.