Meaning of 'good conduct' as a naturalization requirement: appeal against a naturalization refusal

Who this helps

This may help people who applied for simplified naturalization after marrying a spouse and were refused, and who wonder how a court views 'good conduct'.

Case overview

Court

Seoul High Court

Date of judgment

Nov 6, 2009 (Fri)

Topic

Nationality & Naturalization

Original title (Korean)

귀화의 요건 중 '품행이 단정할 것'의 의미

A foreign national from China married a spouse who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea and applied for simplified naturalization. The Minister of Justice refused, saying the requirements of the Nationality Act were not met, including that the applicant did not live with the spouse. The applicant sued to cancel this decision, lost at first instance, and appealed.

What does the 'good conduct' requirement for naturalization mean?

The applicant was a Chinese national married to a Korean citizen. The Minister of Justice refused the permit, saying requirements under the Nationality Act were not met, including that the couple did not live together. The court read 'good conduct' as showing character and behavior that pose no obstacle to accepting the person as a member of the nation, judged by sex, age, occupation, family, career, criminal record and more. The applicant had conspired to pay money for a sham marriage of a younger brother, and a summary order with a fine of 3 million won had become final. On that basis, the court found it hard to say the requirement was met when the decision was made.

How the court ruled

The court interpreted 'good conduct' as showing character and behavior that pose no obstacle to accepting the person as a member of the country, judged by sex, age, occupation, family, career, criminal record and other factors together. The applicant had conspired to give money in return for the sham marriage of a younger brother and received a summary order with a fine of 3,000,000 won, which became final. The court said it was hard to find that this requirement was met at the time of the decision. It also found that the decision did not exceed or abuse discretionary power, and dismissed the appeal.

What to check in a similar situation

The specific reasons for a naturalization refusal and the procedure behind it can be checked at immigration offices under the Ministry of Justice or at the courts.

• Find your immigration office
• Find support centers
• Contacts: Immigration Contact Center 1345

Terms explained

Good conduct requirement

This is one of the conditions for naturalization. The court read it as showing character and behavior that pose no obstacle to accepting a person as a member of the nation, judged on all circumstances together.

Simplified naturalization

This is a naturalization route for certain people, such as the spouse of a Korean citizen. The applicant in this case applied for a permit by this route.

Summary order

This is a court decision that sets a fine or similar penalty by looking at documents alone, without a trial. In this case, a final summary order was used in the judgment.

Deviation or abuse of discretion

This means an administrative agency going beyond its allowed range or misusing its power. The court found that the decision in this case did not fall under it.

More rulings on this topic

• Ruling Upholds Rejection of a Report of Renunciation of Nationality · Seoul Administrative Court
• Ruling That Denial of Naturalization to a Person With a Criminal Record Was Not Unlawful · Seoul Administrative Court
• Ruling cancels denial of Korean nationality restoration after U.S. citizenship · Seoul Administrative Court

See all 11 rulings on Nationality & Naturalization →

Frequently asked questions

Who brought the lawsuit?

A Chinese national brought it. After marrying a Korean citizen, the person applied for simplified naturalization and was refused, then appealed after losing in the first trial.

How did the court rule?

The Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal. Given the final summary order for conspiring over a sham marriage, it found the good conduct requirement hard to regard as met, and it found no deviation or abuse of discretion.

Does this result apply directly to similar cases?

No. This ruling is a judgment on the circumstances of that case and does not apply directly to other cases.