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 April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with the Korean national B on April 1, 2008 as the four-year-old 1970 foreigners, and the same year.

5. 23. Since the 23. National's spouse qualification emigration (F-6) to Korea, a person has been residing in Korea with his/her domicile until now.

B. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a general naturalization permit under Article 5 of the Nationality Act to the Defendant. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the application on the grounds that the Plaintiff was unable to maintain his/her livelihood and was unable to maintain his/her livelihood (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is not a person who has lawfully entered the Republic of Korea and does not harm or are likely to harm the Republic of Korea.

In addition, the defendant is doubtful that the plaintiff had been married in her name with B, and the disposition of this case was taken, but the plaintiff was actually married in her name with B.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

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

C. The judgment under Article 5 of the Nationality Act provides that a person has a domicile in the Republic of Korea for more than five consecutive years as a requirement for general naturalization, ② an adult under the Civil Act of the Republic of Korea, ③ good conduct shall be determined, ④ has the ability to maintain his/her livelihood depends on his/her own assets or functions or family living together with him/her, ④ has basic knowledge as a national of the Republic of Korea, such as Korean language ability and understanding about the custom of the Republic of Korea. As seen earlier, the defendant issued the disposition in this case on the ground that the plaintiff does not meet the above three and four requirements, and thus, the above requirements shall

1. Whether the above requirements are met shall be permitted to naturalization to foreigners.