"I Want to Renounce Korean Citizenship to Become a U.S. Government Employee"...Dual National Spent Only 19 Days in U.S. Over 7 Years

Administrative Lawsuit Over Renunciation of South Korean Citizenship by Dual National
Court Rules "No Basis for Life in the United States," Dismissing the Claim

A dual national of South Korea and the United States filed a lawsuit seeking permission to renounce South Korean citizenship in order to become a U.S. government employee, but the court did not accept the claim. The court determined that the individual had spent only 19 days in the United States over the past seven years and that their primary residence and life were based in South Korea, thus failing to meet the requirements for renunciation of citizenship.

According to the legal community on October 12, the 6th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court, presided over by Chief Judge Na Jin-i, ruled against the plaintiff in August in a lawsuit filed by an individual identified as A, a dual national of South Korea and the United States, seeking to overturn the Ministry of Justice's decision to reject their report of renunciation of citizenship.

On the 22nd, when the hearing for the suspension of execution application regarding Prosecutor General Yoon Seokyeol's two-month suspension is scheduled, reporters and broadcast crews are waiting in front of the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kim Hyunmin kimhyun81@

A was born in 2005 to a South Korean mother and an American father. After entering South Korea in August 2015, A lived with their parents and attended an international school. Seven years later, in June 2022, A left for the United States, submitted a report to the Ministry of Justice declaring their intent to renounce South Korean citizenship, and returned to Korea in July of the same year.

However, in September of the following year, the Ministry of Justice rejected A's report, citing failure to meet the requirement of having a foreign address, among other reasons. In response, A filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to overturn the Ministry's decision.

Article 14 of the Nationality Act stipulates that a dual national may renounce South Korean citizenship and choose a foreign nationality only if they have an address in a foreign country. A argued that they had listed their father's residence in the United States, where he is employed, as their address on the renunciation report, and claimed that the Ministry's rejection was unlawful since the requirement of having a foreign address had been met.

A also contended that while the potential harm to the public interest from their renunciation was minimal, the inability to renounce South Korean citizenship would prevent them from becoming a U.S. federal government employee, thus infringing on their freedom of occupation. A argued that the Ministry of Justice had exceeded and abused its discretionary authority.

However, the court did not accept A's arguments.

The court stated that, when determining whether the requirement of "having an address in a foreign country" for renunciation of citizenship is met, it is necessary to comprehensively consider where the person's actual residence is, whether their stay in South Korea is temporary or incidental, and whether there are objective circumstances indicating an imminent return abroad. The court found that it was insufficient to conclude that A had established their actual residence in the United States at the time of the renunciation report.

In particular, the court pointed out that from August 2015, when A entered South Korea, until June 2022, when A left to apply for renunciation, A had spent only 19 days in the United States. The court determined that, since A lived with their parents in South Korea for most of that period, their actual place of residence at the time of the renunciation application was South Korea.

Furthermore, the court stated, "If the requirement of having a foreign address is not met, the Ministry of Justice must reject the application without exercising discretion. Therefore, the rejection of the renunciation report should be regarded as a mandatory administrative act, not subject to the Ministry's discretion," and thus did not accept A's claim that the Ministry had exceeded or abused its discretionary authority.