This is an AI translation. Check dates, amounts and eligibility against the Korean original and the official page.
KoreaMoa코리아모아

Enter for all results, Esc to close

Popular categories

Nationality & Naturalization

Rulings on naturalization, reinstatement of nationality and renunciation reports · 11 cases

Three representative rulings

  1. Administrative

    Ruling Upholds Rejection of a Report of Renunciation of Nationality

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Case number
    2024구합85625
    Posted on original board

    What was the case about?

    This is a case in which a lawsuit was filed claiming that the rejection of a report of renunciation of nationality was wrong. The plaintiff lived with their parents in Korea for most of the period from entering the Republic of Korea until the time of the report.

    What did the court decide?

    The court found that the plaintiff's actual center of living could be regarded as the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the requirement of holding a foreign address was not met, and the court held that the rejection of the report of renunciation of nationality was lawful.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  2. Administrative

    Ruling That Denial of Naturalization to a Person With a Criminal Record Was Not Unlawful

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Case number
    2024구합84653
    Posted on original board

    What was the case about?

    The plaintiff had a record including referral to juvenile protection proceedings, protective measures under the Juvenile Act, suspension of prosecution, and fines, for special larceny and violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), among others. The agency that made the decision found that the person did not meet the good conduct requirement under Article 5, Item 3 of the Nationality Act, and did not grant naturalization. A lawsuit was filed against this decision.

    What did the court decide?

    The court found that the decision not to grant naturalization contained no unlawful error in the assessment of facts, and no unlawful deviation from or abuse of discretion.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  3. Administrative

    Ruling cancels denial of Korean nationality restoration after U.S. citizenship

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Case number
    2024구합56511
    Posted on original board

    What was the case about?

    A person born in 1986 to Korean parents and educated in the United States obtained U.S. citizenship at age 36 and lost Korean nationality. The person then applied for nationality restoration but received a denial. A lawsuit was then filed against the Minister of Justice seeking cancellation of the denial.

    What did the court decide?

    The court cancelled the denial. On the day the person obtained U.S. citizenship, the person was already exempt from military service under the Military Service Act, had studied entirely abroad since high school, and had stated in the application a plan to perform military service as professional research personnel or social service personnel. Considering these circumstances together, the court found it hard to conclude that the person obtained U.S. citizenship to avoid military service.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  4. Administrative

    Ruling on the rejection of a nationality renunciation report by a dual national who lived in Korea with a father serving in U.S. Forces Korea

    Court
    Seoul High Court
    Case number
    2022누54278
    Date of judgment

    What was the case about?

    The applicant is a dual national born in the United States. The father held Korean nationality and later acquired U.S. nationality; the mother is a U.S. national. The father was posted to U.S. Forces Korea, and the family lived in Korea for about 8 years, where the applicant attended a school on a U.S. military base. In 2018, as a high school student, the applicant reported renunciation of Korean nationality. The Minister of Justice refused to accept the report, citing a base of life in Korea.

    What did the court decide?

    The court held that a base of daily life in Korea does not immediately mean no base of life abroad. It examined whether the stay in Korea was for continued residence or a temporary occasion, whether the person lived with parents, whether special treatment applied under international law or treaties, and whether the person has actually lived at the reported foreign address for a considerable period and still maintains economic ties there. If that address is the base of life and a return there soon is expected, it falls under having a domicile abroad under the Nationality Act. The applicant won.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  5. Administrative

    Ruling Cancels Justice Minister's Refusal to Recognize Nationality

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Posted on original board

    What was the case about?

    Two people were born in Korea to a Korean father and a foreign mother. Their father's acknowledgment of paternity had been completed. Until they became adults, they were recorded in the resident registration record and the family relation register, and they attended school in Korea. Then the family relation register was closed because of a procedural problem. The Minister of Justice did not recognize their Korean nationality, citing reasons including that no notification of acquiring nationality had been made before they reached adulthood.

    What did the court decide?

    The court found that the Minister of Justice's measure violated the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of good faith. It therefore canceled the measure.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  6. Administrative

    Special Naturalization Application by a Person with a Korean Mother and a Japanese Father

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Case number
    2020구합3540
    Posted on original board

    What was the case about?

    This case concerns a plaintiff born to a Korean mother and a Japanese father who has lived in the Republic of Korea and applied for special naturalization. The plaintiff once received a summary order imposing a fine of 300,000 won for unlicensed driving.

    What did the court decide?

    The court found that, even though the plaintiff received a summary order with a fine of 300,000 won for unlicensed driving, there were circumstances in how the driving came about that deserved humanitarian consideration. The court also considered that, after the plaintiff was born, the Nationality Act was amended so that if the mother was Korean, the child could acquire Korean nationality immediately if a legal representative simply applied. Taking these together, the court found that the plaintiff could be regarded as meeting the good conduct requirement under the Nationality Act.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  7. Administrative

    Court revokes decision not to grant naturalization

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Case number
    2020구합78315
    Posted on original board

    What was the case about?

    There was a decision not to grant naturalization, and a lawsuit was filed asking the court to revoke it. Good conduct and the ability to make a living were at issue as requirements for naturalization.

    What did the court decide?

    The court found that there was sufficient reason to view the plaintiff as meeting the naturalization requirements of good conduct and the ability to make a living. Therefore, it revoked the decision not to grant naturalization.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  8. Other

    Court upholds denial of nationality restoration, finding nationality was lost to avoid military service

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Case number
    2016구합2267
    Date of judgment

    What was the case about?

    This case was brought by a person who applied for permission to regain Korean nationality and received a denial. About 1 year before being enrolled in military service liability, which begins at age 18, this person emigrated to the United States. The person obtained U.S. citizenship around October 1995. The application for nationality restoration was made in September 2014, after the person had been exempted from military service.

    What did the court decide?

    The court held that it was right to find that the applicant lost Korean nationality for the purpose of avoiding military service. It relied on points such as the applicant entering and staying in Korea before a month had passed after obtaining citizenship, and staying continuously from July 1997. The applicant obtained citizenship at around age 27, when the military service obligation had to be fulfilled, and stayed in the United States for less than 2 years until 2006, when the applicant was exempted from military service. Therefore, the decision not to permit nationality restoration was found to be lawful.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  9. Other

    Ruling: Denying naturalization solely over a minor traffic accident criminal record was unlawful

    Court
    Seoul Administrative Court
    Case number
    2015구합75244
    Date of judgment

    What was the case about?

    A person who applied for naturalization had a criminal record from a traffic accident. The agency that issued the disposition found, for that reason, that the applicant did not meet the requirement of good conduct, and issued the disposition. A lawsuit was filed against it.

    What did the court decide?

    The court found that the traffic accident was caused by negligence, that the other party was also negligent, and that the applicant had reached a settlement with the victim and paid the fine. It also considered that the applicant had worked for a living for about 9 years with no criminal record or arrears, and had passed the written test and interview. Therefore, the disposition that treated the criminal record as immediately meaning the good conduct requirement was not met failed to consider some of the relevant circumstances, or did not consider them sufficiently. The court held that it exceeded and abused discretion and was unlawful.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  10. Other

    Ruling that upheld the decision denying naturalization

    Court
    Seoul High Court
    Case number
    서울고등법원 2012. 11. 8. 선고 2012누18457 판결
    Date of judgment

    What was the case about?

    A person who applied for naturalization filed a lawsuit to cancel the decision after the application was denied. Around 1996, the applicant entered into a sham marriage to obtain nationality, entered the country under the same name as another person, and registered the marriage. Around 1999, the applicant received a fine. Around 2003, the applicant received a suspension of prosecution for obtaining a passport in the name of another person with the same name. Around 2010, the applicant received a fine in a bodily injury case.

    What did the court decide?

    The court said that even though the applicant has lived in Korea in a normal marriage with a Korean national since around 2003 and has established a basis for daily life, the applicant cannot be regarded as meeting the naturalization requirement of 'good conduct', given the sham marriage, entry under another person's name, marriage registration under that name, and the injury offense. The court therefore found that the decision denying the naturalization application cannot be said to exceed the scope of discretionary authority.

    View original ↗ Summary page
  11. Other

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

    Court
    Seoul High Court
    Date of judgment

    What was the case about?

    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 did the court decide?

    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.

    View original ↗ Summary page

Source: Republic of Korea Courts, Major Rulings of Courts Nationwide

Supreme Court copyright policy ↗

Frequently asked questions

What do the Nationality & Naturalization rulings cover?

This collects 11 rulings on Rulings on naturalization, reinstatement of nationality and renunciation reports. Each case is laid out as what happened, then how the court ruled.

Can I apply a ruling directly to my own case?

No. A ruling decides the facts of that one case, so the outcome can differ for another case. For your own situation, check with an official body such as the immigration office with jurisdiction.

Where can I read the original ruling?

Each case has a “view original” link to the public post on the Supreme Court of Korea website. KoreaMoa does not reproduce full rulings; it only provides summaries.

See all ruling topics

← All court rulings

Search rulings: Nationality & Naturalization →