| Bibliographies and reviews | |||||
| Grading | Nationality | Population registers | Race | Minorities | Suicide |
Cho Kyongje on "Personal law of Koreans in Japan"
How Japanese courts have treated family matters of Kankoku/Chosenjin in Japan
First posted 18 April 2010
Last updated 20 June 2011
Introduction to review | Populations | Entity and affiliation terminology | Objectives | Positions on applicable law | Home country law | Affiliation criteria | Tashiro on neutral Chosenese | 37 court cases (1954-1988) | Biographical note (Cho's reports on ROK laws)
| [Cho Kyongje] 趙慶済 [チョ キョンジェ Cho Kyonje] [조 경제 Cho Kyŏngje] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2007 |
在日韓国・朝鮮人の属人法に関する論争 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IntroductionThis is one of the more recent and most comprehensive reviews of "personal law" issues concerning the status and treatment of what the author conventionally calls "Zainichi Kankoku/Chosenjin" and abbreviates "Zainichi" -- meaning, here, "Koreans in Japan". "Kankokujin" is a recognized nationality while "Chosenjin" is a legacy affiliation tantamount to a latent nationality. Neither term, however, is legally singular. More about them and what they signify in different contexts below. Cho covers a lot legal territory. Here I will focus on the topics listed in the menu at the top, which center on how courts in Japan have viewed the "affiliation" of Koreans in Japan in terms of their actual or presumed nationality, but also in terms of the address of their principle register (honseki), their domicile, their habitual residence, and their "closeness" to either the Republic of Korea (ROK) or the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK), if not to Japan -- in matters of private international law. Legal terminologyCho calls his article a "research note" (研究ノート), but as he has written it for a legal journal, he assumes that readers will have a basic understanding of the field of law and the laws he talks about. The most essential terms are encountered in the title and introduction. The importance of Cho's article -- as an original and generally interesting and concise overview of problems that many other legalists have written about -- cannot be appreciated without an understanding of the legal terms he tosses out in the introduction and refines throughout the article.
PopulationsThe first two paragraphs constitute an historical overview of the population Cho is concerned about (page 250, structural translation and alphabetic notes mine; Cho's numerical notes omitted). Terms for entities and affiliations which I discuss below this citation are marked in green bold.
Note A "Chōsenjin" reflects the legal status of the population that lost its Japanese nationality in 1952. Even though the 2005 population is a mixed "Kankoku/Chōsenjin" population consisting mostly of ROK nationals, Cho is describing it in terms of its origin as a "Chōsenjin" population. This is accurate since the present population is legally defined in terms of its residential status in Japan as of and since 2 September 1945, and its separation from (loss of) Japanese nationality from 28 April 1952. Cho's use of "Chōsenjin" as an historical term is very objective compared to that of Kim Dong Jo (1918-2004), an ROK diplomat who played a major role in ROK-Japan talks from 1951 to 1965. Kim, who was born a Chōsenjin and was a local bureaucrat in the Interior when Japan surrendered in 1945, refers to his own historical population at the time like this (Kim 1986: 17, structural translation and bold emphasis mine).
For Kim, "same wombers [compatriots] in Japan" (在日同胞 zai-Nichi dōhō) is a synonym for "Kankokujin in Japan" even before the establishment of ROK as a state in 1948, much less before Japan began to recognize "Kankokujin" in Japan from 1965. This usage reflects ROK's view, evident before the start of ROK-Japan normalization talks in 1951, that the 1910 annexation of the Empire of Korea as Chōsen was illegal, and that its own roots go back to the the provisional government of the Republic of Korea established during the 1919 Independence Movement. See Japanese nationality after World War II for more information about Kim and the ROK-Japan talks. Note B "Chōsenjin" (Chosenese) reflects the status under Japanese law of all Japanese affiliated with Chōsen -- the territory Japan had renounced in the San Francisco Peace Treaty -- who lost their Japanese nationality when the treaty came into effect in 1952 -- regardless of where they were residing at the time, and regardless of what nationalities they may have had in the view of other states. By 1948 Chosnese had become ROK nationals under ROK law, and by 1952 many Chosenese in Japan had migrated to ROK nationality in the eyes of ROK. But in Japanese law they remained Chōsenjin with Japanese nationality. The alien "Kankoku/Chōsenjin" population does not formally come into existence until 1952 -- and even then, as still now, it is conflated as "Kankoku/Chōsenjin" for most legal and administrative purposes. Moreover, the component of the "Kankoku/Chōsenjin" population that qualifies for exceptional status pursuant to the peace treaty continues to be legally defined by its "Chōsenjin" origins in Japan. Entity and affiliation terminologyCho thus sets the stage for the unfolding of his own contribution to the discussion of an issue he describes -- in the words of another writer -- as "probably one of the biggest points of contention in international private law in postwar Japan" (page 250). He illustrates the scope of the controversy by short listing the titles of several related articles (page 250, structural translation mine). Legal terms, which I discuss later, are marked in green bold.
Cho's labeling is very precise -- as seen in his use of "Chōsenjin" (Chosenese) when referring to the origin of the present population of "Kankoku/Chōsenjin" in Japan.
However, not all Kankoku/Chōsenjin in Japan are accorded treaty-entitled status. The "decreasing trend" Cho refers to concerns only treaty entitled Koreans in Japan. Their attrition -- through death and naturalization, and high intermarriage rates with Japanese, which means their children will probably be acquire Japanese nationality at birth -- is countered by an increase in the flow of migrants from ROK who are treated like general aliens. Some Chōsenjin, too, are not accorded treaty-entitled status because they were not in the prefectures on or before 2 September 1945. Legally, then, there are four general categories of so-called "Koreans in Japan" -- ROK Koreans and Chosenese with SPR status -- ROKoreans and Chosenese who are general aliens -- and a smattering of of DPRKoreans who have been admitted under special circumstances. All such categories, though, represent legal statuses that have no bearing on an individual's sentiments about "Korea" -- north, south, or united -- nor on their feelings about Japan. Cho does not touch upon such subcategories in his general description of "Zainichi Kankoku/Chōsenjin" because he is mainly concerned with civil matters like inheritance and family status -- under whatever "Korean" laws are determined to apply. Such determinations hinge mainly on whether one is an ROK national or a Chōsenjin. Cho alludes to variations within these broader categories when they are germane to actual cases and decisions. ObjectivesCho's objectives are twofold (pages 252-253, structural translation mine). Legal terms which I define and discuss below this citation are marked in green bold.
Thus all cases Cho reviews reflect the pre-1990 version of the 1898 Rules of Laws. Positions on applicable lawCho, in his introduction, summarizes the the various positions that legalists have taken on criteria for determining the personal law of Koreans in Japan. Here I have very closely and structurally paraphrased Cho's summary while adding in [square brackets] some clarifications, asides, and commentary. The structural translations of cited articles from the pre-1989 version of the 1898 Rules of Laws. Cho observes that the start of the dispute centered on the point that Kankoku [ROK] law should apply as the principal country law that would be the personal law of Zainichi -- because, when Japan and ROK opened negotiations to establish diplomatic relations, Japan gave ROK law de facto recognition as seen from international law -- whereas Kita Chōsen [DPRK] law, which recognized neither de jure nor de facto, should not apply in Japan. The point of the dispute was, in other words, whether it is possible to designate the law of an unrecognized state [DPRK] as the external liaison law -- or whether, even if possible, in the case of the Chōsen peninsula, which is divided, if within that [divided] state (国家) one state is recognized and the other is not recognized, then the principal country law should be limited to the law of the recognized state. When normalizing its diplomatic relations with Kankoku in 1965, Japan gave ROK legal recognition, and in 1991 both Kankoku and Kita Chōsen simulatenously joined the United Nations, and in 2002 Prime Minister Koizumi visited [Kita Chōsen] (訪朝 hō-Sen) [and directly engaged in what amounted to state-to-state talks with DPRK's leader Kim Jong Il.] Cho does not point out that, before Japan and ROK normalized their relationship, there were all manner of contacts between Japan and DPRK, some direct, some through third parties. The two states began normalization talks in 1991, the year both ROK and DPRK were simultaneousliy admitted to the United Nationals. Mostly, though, the two states have accused each other of bad faith and balked at walking too far down the road to normalization. In any event, even ROK has yet to establish normal relations with DPRK, and so like Japan it does not yet recognize DPRK's nationality. To be continued. Standards of "degree of closeness"Cho considers several opinions regarding standards of "degree of closeness" (密接度 missetsudo) to be used in determining Home country law. The primary consideration is which country a person What is called "degree of closeness" ( Common To be continued. Home country lawThe next dispute Cho takes up has to do with the applicability of Japan's 1898 Rules of Laws, in particular the application of the 1948 revsion of the law to Koreans in Japan after their loss of Japanese nationality in 1952. The postwar version of the law -- revised a number of times, significantly in 1989 (effective from 1990) and 2000 -- was replaced and abrogated by the 2007 Common Rules Law (promulgated in 2006). Cho adopted the convention of citing the pre-1990 version of the Rules of Laws as "Rules of Laws Old Article X" (法例旧 X 条 Hōrei Kyū X Jō) and the 1990 version as simply "Rules of Laws Article X" (法例 X 条 Hōrei X Jō) (page 251). The contending provisions at the time of the dispute were in Article 27, which became Article 28 from 1990. The provisions of these articles are contained in Article 38 of the current 2007 Common Rules of Laws.
ROK or DPRK? Or Japan?The problem -- when chosing which rule should apply in determinations of the "home country law" of Koreans in Japan -- is whether the rule should be Article 27(3), which states that "Concerning a person of a country in which laws differ according to region, [the court's determination] shall be in accordance with the laws of the region with the person is affiliated." -- or the rule of Article 27(1), which states that "When, in case [a matter is to be determined] in accordance with the home country law of a party, the party possesses two or more nationalities, [the court] shall determine the home country law in accordance with the nationality most lately [recently] acquired. Provided that, when one of them is the nationality of Japan, [the matter] shall be [determined] in accordance with the laws of Japan." If applying Article 27(3), and if it can be said that the divided condition of the Chōsen peninsula (朝鮮半?④hōsen hantō) qualified it for classification as country with non-uniform laws, then two opinions arise concerning the treatment of a Korean in Japan, one that treatment should follow the laws of region of affiliation, the other that treatment should follow the law of the region with which the person is most closely related (which happens to be the principle of Article 28(3) from 1990. If, on the other hand, Article 27(1) were applied, even if one considered that the nationality laws of both ROK and DPRK applied to Koreans in Japan, and they were viewed as were viewed as having multiple nationalities, one could not argue -- it would not be appropriate to hold that, since DPRK was established after ROK, the laws of DPRK should apply in accordaince with the principle of most recently acquired nationality -- for the provision's "legislative intent" (立法趣旨 rippō shushi) assumes that the multiple nationality originated in a "status change" (身分変動 mibun hendō). In a case such as that of Chosenese (朝鮮人 Chōsenin), in which multiple nationality originated in a "political change" (政治的変動 seiji-teki hendō), a court would have to determine "home country law" in accordance with a judgment the "home country" (本国 hongoku) with which a party was most closely related. "Status changes" require some agency of a person or of a legal guardian, whereas "political changes" are beyond an individual's control. Resolving conflicts of affiliation such as those that those which embroil some Koreans in Japan requires going back to the intent of personal law, which is to determine home country law on the basis of the country with which a person is viewed as being intimately connected. Having established these broad (and somewhat hypothetical) parameters of the controversy, and observing that in any case it would come down to deciding what factors should be weighed in determining the extent that a subject is related to one state or another (pages 251-252) -- Cho touches upon some factors that make such determinations difficult (page 252, structural translation mine, bold emphasis mine).
It is not clear whether Cho would regard people who were "sanguineously Chōsenjin" -- who were separated from Japanese nationality on 28 April 1952 -- could also be considered "former Japanese" -- since they had to have been "Japanese" in order to lose Japan's nationality. In strict Japanese legal parlance, his "former Japanese" would be "former Interiorites" (元内地人 moto Naichijin) -- Naichijin being a status which, like Chōsenjin and Taiwanjin, was based entirely on register affiliation. One could raise questions about applicable law in legacy cases involving Chōsenjin who became Naichijin -- i.e., Japanese who are "former Chōsenjin" (元朝鮮人 moto Chōsenjin). In fact, some nationality confirmation cases have involved the changing statuses of "moto" Naichijin and "moto" Chōsenjin or their offspring. See in particular Kanda v. State, 1961 under "Nationality confirmation cases" in "The Sovereign Empire" section of "The Empires of Japan" feature of this website. There has been all manner of debate among legalists in Japan regarding the standards by which a court in Japan should determine the "home country law" of "Kankokujin" and "Chōsenjin" in Japan. For "Kankokujin" the standard is fairly clear cut, as aliens who are registered as "Kankokujin" are recognized as nationals of the Republic of Korea (ROK) -- i.e., ROK's laws would apply in private matters between ROK nationals. The problem is what to do with aliens who are categorically "Chōsenjin". The few such aliens who have actually entered Japan having left the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) would generally be treated according to DPRK laws, in matters involving other such people. But in matters concerning such people and ROK nationals, ROK laws would probably apply. In fact, almost always, Japanese courts have applied ROK laws to Chōsenjin generally, for the simple reason that, regardless of their political views, the vast majority are affiliated with family registers in ROK's jurisdiction and have no territorial ties with provinces under DPRK's jurisdiction. Both ROK and DPRK claim the same territory that Japan called "Chōsen" -- and, as this term is used in alien registers and immigration statistic, it generally refers to the peninsula as a whole, as a territory that was once part of Japan, and is now divided under the control and jurisdiction of two states that claim to its rightful successors. Affiliation criteriaCho reviews the variety of ways that legalists in Japan have regarded the question of how courts should go about determining the home country law of Koreans in Japan, particularly those that are registered as affiliates of Chōsen. To be continued. Tashiro on neutral ChoseneseEnter Tashiro Aritsugu (田代有嗣 1928-2007), the Director of the Second Division of the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, responsible for family register and nationality matters in the early 1970s, when he wrote what remains a standard reference work on the 1950 Nationality Law (see Tashiro 1974). Touching upon the circumstances of Japan's switch of recognition from the Republic of China (ROC) to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1972, and presupposing that its relationship with Chōsen as well Japan would view Chōsen as a territory with different laws, Tashio, according to Cho, made the following remarks at the 26th General Meeting of the National Federation of Family Register Administration Councils (全国連合戸籍事務協議会総会) in 1973 regarding the treatment of "neutral Chosenese" (中立系の朝鮮人 chūritsu-kei no Chōsenjin) (pages 263-264, underscoring mine).
Minami ToshifumiCho goes on to report that Minami Toshifumi (南敏文), the Director of the Second Division of the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice in 1989 when the 1898 Rules of Laws was being revised, stated in various contemporary publications that "In the northern territory of Chōsen peninsula, that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (朝鮮民主主義人民共和国 Ch#333;sen Minshu-shugi Jinmin Kyōwakoku) was enforcing its laws is a clearly a fact. . . . That recently some people have come to Japan from Kita Chō is clear, and if the person concerned is clearly affiliated with its territory, [Japanese courts] should take the laws of the Democratic People's Repulbic of Korea as the governing law" (page 264, my underscoring). Regarding family register matters, Minami also wrote "That the governning law would be the law of the Republic of Korea (大韓民国 Dai Kan Min Koku) is a matter of course, but regarding also Chōsenjin who do not have [ROK] certification, so long as the person [party] does not particularly say that [he/she] is not a Kankokujin, in principle, there is no objection to disposing [of the matter] considering [it] pursuant to Kankoku law" (page 264). Minami, himself an expert on international private law in relation to family register matters, and the author of technical and popular books on this subject, later served judgeships in family, district, and high courts. In 2006, as the chief judge in the Tokyo High Court hearing of a case involving the registration (hence Japanese nationality) of twins born to Mukai Aki, a Japanese woman, through the surrogacy of an American woman in the United States, Minami ordered the Shinagawa Ward office to register the children, overruling a district court decision which had upheld the ward's refusal to register them because, under Japanese law, Mukai not had not been their birth mother. Japanese family law recognizes parental relationships under only three circumstances: (1) a child born in wedlock [legitimate child] (嫡出子), i.e., to a married couple, (2) acknowledgment (認知), i.e., recognition by unmarried parents, or (3) legitimation (準正), i.e., the treatment of an illegitimate child (非嫡出子) as a legitimate child through marriage of its parents. A Nevada court had ruled that the children were Mukai's legitimate children. But such rulings are generally not applicable in Japan. Minami's bench leaned toward registration in consideration of the children's welfare. The following year, the Supreme Court overruled the High Court decision, while pointing out that legislative solutions to such problem are needed). Mukai Aki (b1964), a Japanese actress, is legally Takada Aki, and her husband, former professional wrestler Takada Nobuhiko (b1962) is her children's biological father. Adoption between Japanese and ChineseRelated to the question of the effects of recognition on applicable law, Cho cites a 1976 reply from the Director of the Second Division of the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, apparently concerning to a query from a local registrar, concerning the governing law in the case of an adoption by a Chinese of a Japanese child, to the effect that it was appropriate to apply the Civil Code [civil law] of the Republic of China to the Chinese adaptive parents, thus admitting the applicability of ROC law despite the fact that Japan, having established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1972, no longer recognized ROC (Cho 264). Chōsen peninsula and ChinaA 1991 office guide to external liaison (international) family matter cases, edited by the Family Bureau of the General Secretariat of the Supreme Court (最高裁判所事務総局家庭局) in 1991, a year after the 1989 revision of the Rules of Laws came into effect, stated that, "The determination of a party's home country law, is understood as having no direct relationship to the presence or nor of diplomatic recognition and the like toward the the government that enacted and promulgated the law" (page 268). The guidebook, as cited by Cho, goes on to state that, from the standpoint of international private law, there are three views as to how to determine the governing law: (1) as an issue of applying the law of the unrecognized state or government, (2) as an issue of determining the home country law of a country in which laws differ according to territory, by applying Paragraph 3 of Article 28 [revised from old 27(3)], and (3) as an issue of home country law determinations of persons with multiple nationalities. The guidebook went on to say this (page 268).
ROK and DPRK nationality lawsCho then introduces the "nationality systems" of Kankoku and Kita Chōsen, as two entities which resulted from a divided occupation pursuant to the terms of surrender signed by Japan and the Allied Powers on 2 September 1945. He also delves into opinions of legalists regarding the possibility of dual nationality on the part of people to whom one might conceivably apply the nationality laws of both countries. And then there are issues like the nationality status of a foreign woman who marries a Kankoku man, versus that of an alien woman who marries a Kita Chōn man -- since, in either case, she stands to acquire Kankoku nationality, but not Kita Chōsen nationality, through the marriage (pages 268-272). Criteria for determining home country lawCho then closely examines three general factors that courts use to determine home country law standards, namely, (1) the "closeness" of the party to an entity, (2) the "wishes" party regarding affiliation, and (3) inferences of the party's "wishes" based on the party's behavior (pages 272-284). The behavioral criteria are as follows (my paraphrasing).
Tashiro revisitedUnder the second general standard -- a party's wish regarding affiliation -- Cho introduces remarks made by Tashiro in 1992 (page 274, parenthetic (sic) Cho's, underscoring mine).
37 court cases (1954-1988)The principle of affiliation -- meaning usually "nationality" -- has generally been the standard for determining "governing law" in family matters. Cho, wondering how this has played out in actual cases, lists the particulars of 37 cases spanning 1954-1987 (pages 295-298). For each case, Cho gives the name of the court and the date of case, the title (matters) of the case and particulars on the source of his information about the case, the principle of law used to determine applicable law, the criteria for determining affiliation, and the country law applied to the case. I have shown the most essential data in Cho's list but in a table of my own design. I have reproduced Cho's entity and other terminology according -- except that, for the names of applicable laws, I have shown Cho's "Kankoku hō" (韓国法) as "ROK law" and "Kita Chōsen hō" (北朝鮮法) as "DPRK law". Cho distinguishes subcategories of Hōrei 27(1) and 27(3), which I have ignored for my purposes here, which is to focus on the criteria used to determine affiliation in relation to the determination of the law to be applied. I have also shorted Cho's more formal descriptions of the matters involved in the cases to simple statements that fit in the column of my table. It is obvious from the table what sort of matters fall to family courts as opposed to district courts. Note that these would be the courts in which a matter would first be heard, and whose judgments most parties would accept and not appeal to a higher court. Not having read the summaries in the digests from which Cho culled his information, much less the original decisions, I cannot comment on the accuracy of the representations in his list, regarding, for example, the use of terms like "Kankoku" and "Kita Chōsen", which are not the formal names of ROK or DPRK in Japanese legal briefs. Presumably "Chōsen" and "Kita Chōsen" are not necessarily synonyms, and presumably "Chōsenjin" does not necessarily imply affiliation with Kita Chōsen -- though of course these are the implications of their usage by "Zai Nihon Chōsenjin Sōren" and its shorter name "Chōsen Sōren". More important than consistency in the use of entity names, however, is the variety of standards which local family and district courts in Japan have applied when determining the affiliation of aliens of Korean status in Japan for the purpose of determining applicable law in family matters -- especially in cases involving Korean who are or were recently registered as aliens of "Chōsen" nationality.
After presenting his list, Cho shows a distribution of the cases according to their multiple criteria for determination of home country law in terms of the closeness of the concerned parties in the cases. His distribution covers nine criteria, from "Honseki locality only" to "Consideration of joining a Zainichi organization" (page 299). Relatively few cases were determined by only one criterion -- 4 cases by only honseki locality (1 ROK, 3 DPRK), 3 cases by only the wish of the concerned person (2 ROK, 2 DPRK), and only 1 case by only alien registration nationality (ROK) (page 300). 9 cases involving parties whose honseki locality was within the territory controlled by ROK were adjudicated under DPRK law on the basis of other elements, while 4 cases were adjudicated under DPRK law because of the fact that the party had returned to Kita Chōsen, and in 6 cases DPRK's laws were taken to be the governing law on account of the party having joined the General Association of Koreans in Japan, which is related to Kita Chōsen (page 300) Cho remarks that, among 34 general cases, the home country law was taken to be ROK law in 12 cases and DPRK law in 22 cases (page 300). I would add that of the three cases not included, another involved ROK law, one involved Japanese law, and the applicable law in the other was not stated. Immediately following this breakdown of "34 general cases", Cho gives the following breakdown by points of dispute -- which totals 37 cases (page 300, my paraphrasing).
Biographical noteCho Kyongje, as I have romanized his name, based on the received kanji (趙慶済) and kana (チョ キョンジェ、ちょ・きょんじぇ) versions, is a judicial scriviner (司法書士 hōshishoshi) and part-time lecturer in the Law Department at Ritsumeikan University. He appears to specialize in legal matters concerning Koreans in Japan. Family law and status registrationShortly after publishing the article reviewed here, he published, in the same journal, a translation of ROK's new status registration law, called "ROK's new status law: "Law concerning registration of family relations et cetera" (韓国の新しい身分登録法 / 「家族関係の登録等に関する法律」、立命館法学、2007年3号 (第313号), Ritsumeikan Law Review, 2007 No. 3 (No. 313), pages 268-306 (942-980). This law was promulgated as Law No. 8435 on 17 May 2007 and enforced from 1 January 2008. The new replaced the standing Family Register Law, and in effect abolished the conventional head-of-household system, putting the registration of family status matters related to birth, death, marriage and the like, on an individual basis. Multiple nationalityMore recently he has published an article on "Korea's new Nationality Law: Centering on pledge to not exercise foreign nationality" (韓国の新しい国籍法：外国国籍不行使誓約を中心に) (立命館法学、2010年4号 (第332号), Ritsumeikan Law Review, 2010 No. 4 (No. 332), pages 301-338 (1417-1454). The article is a close examination of amendments to ROK's Nationality Law promulgated on 4 May 2010 as Law No. 10275 and enforced from 1 January 2011, concerning declarations of choice of nationality on the part of ROK nationals who also possess one or more foreign nationality. The article includes statistics on ROK nationality acquired through naturalization for 2005 and 2009, broken down by type of naturalization. Cho states there were only 41 naturalizations in 1991. His figures for 2005 and 2009 are as follows (Notes 7 and 8, page 305, my arrangement and titles).
ROK naturalization (Cho 2010)
2005 2009
General 107 56
Facilitated
Marriage 7,075 17,141
Other 1,356 407
Special 3,761 7,440
Total 12,299 25,044
While naturalizations doubled over these four years, those faciliated by marriage increased by 2.4 times absolutely and from 57.5 to 68.4 as a percent of all naturalizations (my figures). Statistics from an ROK government site show the following naturalization figures for 2001-2009. ROK naturalization (ROK government) 2001 724 2002 2,972 2003 5,986 2004 7,261 2005 12,299 2006 7,477 2007 8,536 2008 11,518 2009 25,044 According to Cho, the nationality breakdown for the 25,044 aliens ROK permitted to naturalize in 2009 was China 11,744 and Vietnam 3,754. Cho gives the following figures for acquisition of ROK nationality by recovery of nationality (国籍回復 kokuseki kaifuku) (Note 9, page 305, my arrangement and titles) ROK nationality recovery (Cho 2010) 1991 489 2003 1,748 2004 2,001 2005 4,675 2006 648 2007 1,783 2008 3,740 2009 1,712 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||