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 July 3, 1992, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on July 3, 1992 with a short-term visit visa issued under the name of the Chinese Republic of China (hereinafter “China”)’s nationality as a ship of the Chinese nationality (hereinafter “China”), and left the Republic of Korea after filing a voluntary report on the illegal stay on October 8, 1996.

B. After departure, the Plaintiff obtained a visa accompanied (F-3) using a passport issued under the name of E (CF) (F) after departure from the Republic of Korea, and re-entry the Republic of Korea on December 3, 1996.

After the plaintiff's husband was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for violation of the Tourism Promotion Act and one year of suspended execution, the plaintiff's husband was denied the extension of the plaintiff's period of stay for about one month, and the plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on November 14, 2003.

C. On September 1, 2003, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea using a passport issued under the name of E (C) (hereinafter “A”), the name of the Republic of Korea as of September 1, 2003, and reported the fact of illegal stay after the period of sojourn expires, and entered the Republic of Korea on March 20, 2005, and stayed again on April 16, 2006, and stayed again on February 8, 2009.

On March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for the acquisition of nationality to the Defendant on November 26, 2014 while entering the Republic of Korea again and staying there.

On July 6, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of naturalization on the ground of the “act of good conduct.” During that process, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea by October 11, 2015 pursuant to Articles 7(1), 7-2 subparag. 2, and 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act (the Defendant withdrawn his claim regarding the violation of Article 7-2 in the instant lawsuit) by citing the same clause against the Plaintiff on September 11, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, and Eul evidence 1 to 5.