Recommended Jeju Attorney Case | Administrative Disposition Invalidated With Help for a Client Who Received a Jeju Attorney Recommendation

For what kind of case did the client receive a Jeju lawyer recommendation?

The Daeryun Jeju lawyer set out to understand the circumstances of the client's case.

The client, who received a Jeju lawyer recommendation, had been born in Italy and, having resided there for more than 10 years, had been granted Italian citizenship.

The client's parents had, after the client's birth, registered the birth in the Republic of Korea as subsequently acquired multiple-nationality holders, and had thereafter completed the report on treatment as a national, so the client had lived as a multiple-nationality holder.

After being discharged from military service, the client submitted a pledge not to exercise foreign nationality, but received a notice of rejection from the relevant authority.

The client was told that the relevant authority's reason for the rejection disposition was that he was "not a multiple-nationality holder, but a person subject to a report of loss of nationality rather than a report of choice of nationality."

He came to the Daeryun Jeju office on a Jeju lawyer recommendation in order to bring an 🔗administrative lawsuit seeking revocation of the rejection disposition regarding the report of choice of nationality.

To the client who visited after looking up Jeju attorney recommendations, the competent authority stated, ‘The client acquired Italian nationality after birth. The client is not a dual national.’

In response, the Daeryun Jeju attorney argued that the client’s acquisition of Italian citizenship was based on birth in Italy and that the client is a dual national subject to the obligation to choose a nationality.

Specifically, the Daeryun Jeju attorney countered, ‘Contrary to the competent authority’s assertion, there is no basis to hold that, in addition to the cause of acquiring foreign nationality, the time of acquisition must also fall at the time of birth in order to be deemed a dual national under the Nationality Act. The client’s acquisition of citizenship was based on birth in Italy, and that being so, the client is a dual national subject to the obligation to choose a nationality.’

The relevant authority argued that the client, who came to Daeryun on a Jeju lawyer recommendation, was at fault.

The relevant authority stated that it was gross negligence for the client to have failed to inquire whether he qualified as a multiple-nationality holder, even though he could have confirmed this through an embassy or the like.

In response, the Daeryun Jeju lawyer argued that, in the report on treatment as a national and in the various subsequent administrative measures, the relevant authority had never raised any issue concerning loss of Republic of Korea nationality.

That is, because there had been no expression of an official view by the administrative agency, the client and his family had no choice but to believe that their Republic of Korea nationality was recognized.

In particular, the client had been issued a resident registration number and had even fulfilled his military service obligation.

The Daeryun Jeju lawyer emphasized that the relevant authority had expressed an official view through the resident registration number and the resident registration card.

The client had completed everything, including being assigned a resident registration number through the report on treatment of nationals and fulfilling military service obligations.

The Daeryun Jeju attorney argued that if the report on selection of nationality were recognized as a void disposition, the disadvantage to the client would be far too great.

This is because, in the event that a report of loss of nationality is filed, it is uncertain whether the countless legal relationships formed on the premise that the client was a national of the Republic of Korea could be recognized again, and the scholarships and medical insurance benefits he had received could even be reclaimed.

Daeryun argued, on the basis of the relevant situation of the client who had received a Jeju attorney referral, that the disposition rejecting the report on selection of nationality was void.

The reason Daeryun is chosen as a recommended Jeju attorney is that it provides client-tailored services based on numerous successful cases.

At Law Firm Daeryun, veteran specialist attorneys with backgrounds in the courts, the prosecution, and the police work as one team to present optimal solutions tailored to the client's situation.

If you need a Daeryun 🔗legal consultation with a specialist attorney, please visit this firm's Jeju attorney at any time.