time of birth”, it could not at all be expected that the ROK authorities would affirm such a claim. Indeed, A himself approached ROK authorities in the process of his aforementioned deportation procedures with the Immigration Bureau, but A states he was simply not taken seriously. Thus, the ROK authorities have never treated A as a national. Based on the above, it is clear that A was treated by the Japanese authorities as an illegally staying foreigner (ROK national or stateless), and was not recognized as a ROK national by the ROK authorities. Thus, it should be concluded that A became stateless when the court decision to affirm the non-existence of a father-child relationship was finalized. (3) Administrative response by Japan As stated above, C immediately submitted the notification to recognize his paternity over A as soon as the court decision to affirm the non-existence of a father-child relationship between A and D was finalized. A appears to have expected that he would be transferred from D’s family register to C’s family register. However, the officers in charge of family registers in the relevant municipality office within Tokyo removed A from D’s family register and denied A’s request to be registered under C’s family register, while considering A to have retroactively lost his Japanese nationality. The Tokyo Immigration Bureau, as if echoing the position of the other agencies, treated A as an illegally staying foreigner and subjected him to deportation procedures. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the Immigration Bureau was attentive to some extent174 to the very unique circumstances in which A was placed, demonstrated by the Bureau’s attempt to substantively remedy his situation by speeding up the processing of A’s case while providing a provisional release permit175 without actually detaining him (Article 39 of ICRRA), as well as by granting him special permission to stay.176 Furthermore, A’s naturalization application that A filed at the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau after being granted special permission for residency was rapidly approved after an expedited processing as compared to normal cases. The usual practice is that when a foreigner with a history of illegally staying applies for naturalization, the application is not granted unless ten years or so have passed after the regularization of his or her stay. In contrast, A was granted naturalization within one year 174 The Immigration Bureau seems to have undertaken the deportation procedure for A as a Korean national; it is not clear why A was determined as a national of the Republic of Korea and not stateless. 175 ICRRA Article 54. This is a system provided by ICRRA for temporary release, for an individual who has been issued a Detention Order or Deportation Order; it is similar to bail in the criminal procedure. It is necessary to appear once every 1-3 month(s) at the Immigration Bureau and obtain confirmation of appearance (in case of provisional release under Detention Order) or renewal of permission (in case of provisional release under Deportation Order). In immigration practice, strict prohibition of work has become apparent recently, in addition to limiting the area of movement to within a prefecture. Meanwhile, the welfare system does not apply to a person under provisional release. 176 ICRRA Article 50 (1). On Special Permission to Stay, see supra note 122. 82