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, 2009, the Plaintiff is a foreigner with four arms and is married with B who is a national of the Republic of Korea and resides in the Republic of Korea as the spouse (F-2) status from August 13, 2010, and the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) from August 3, 2012.

B. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for simplified naturalization (hereinafter “instant application”) based on Article 6(2)1 of the Nationality Act on the ground that “The Plaintiff has a domicile in the Republic of Korea for at least two consecutive years in a state of marriage with his/her spouse who is a national of the Republic of Korea (B)” (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On May 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition of denial of naturalization (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Defendant was unable to readily conclude conduct due to criminal history, and failed to meet the requirements for normal marital life” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) although the plaintiff was issued a summary order by uttering of a falsified investigation document in around 2003, it was a minor criminal record that had been old and has already been invalidated. Although all were found to have been in violation of the Immigration Control Act under the "report on Change of Place of Residence or Change of Place of Residence", it cannot be evaluated that the plaintiff had expressed an attitude to disregard the legal order of the Republic of Korea by omitting a report due to a simple mistake. Since the plaintiff has been living in Korea for a long time and has set a good example, it is reasonable to deem that Article 5 subparagraph 3 of the Nationality Act satisfied the requirement of "provoking of good conduct" under Article 5 subparagraph 3 of the Nationality Act. In addition, while the plaintiff had been maintaining a normal marital relationship with B, it was inevitable for B to go separately from B to live with C, who is his child, and even after that, maintaining a normal marital relationship with B.