1. Facts
The plaintiff is a male born in 1956. He acquired US citizenship on March 15, 2002. From around September 2006, he mainly resided in Korea. The plaintiff’s spouse and son also reside in Korea.
The plaintiff returned to Korea around September 2006 and started working as the secretary general of the school corporation. He currently serves as the president or director of each of the school corporations and foundations.
The plaintiff has been convicted of acquittal and perjury. However, each of the above crimes stemmed from a dispute between relatives.
The rest of the criminal history of the plaintiff is as follows. Around September 1980, he was sentenced to a fine of 100,000 won for negligence on the job. On November 11, 2011, and he received an abbreviated order of a fine of 1.5 million won for personal injury. That’s all.
2. Rules
Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act stipulates that “foreigners who were Korean citizens may acquire Korean nationality by obtaining permission to recover their nationality from the Minister of Justice.”
Paragraph 2 of the same Article stipulates that “The Minister of Justice shall not permit the restoration of nationality to a person who falls under any of the subparagraphs.” As one of them in No. 2, “a person with poor conduct” is mentioned.
“a person with poor conduct” means “a person who does not possess the character and conduct that will not hinder the acceptance of the applicant for nationality restoration as a member of the Republic of Korea”.
This should be determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances such as gender, age, family, occupation, career, criminal history, etc. of the applicant for restoration of nationality. In particular, in relation to criminal history, it is necessary to simply confirm whether or not a crime has been committed. In addition, various circumstances such as the content of the crime, the degree of punishment, the circumstances at the time and after the crime, and the period from the date of the crime to the disposition must be considered comprehensively.
3. Conclusion
ⓐ Whether the plaintiff’s behavior is not well defined cannot be regarded as an area where the discretion of the administrative agency is allowed. ⓑ The crime committed by the plaintiff has relatively little effect on the general members of the social community by its nature. ⓒ Just because the plaintiff has a history of being punished for the above crimes, it cannot be said that his character and conduct are so undecided that he cannot be accepted as a member of the Republic of Korea again.
Therefore, ‘disposition of disapproval of nationality recovery’ is illegal as it does not meet the disposition requirements.