of being regularized, i.e., A was granted special permission to stay. The Legal Affairs Bureau also appears to have paid particular attention to the severe circumstances into which A fell. Notwithstanding the above, within the series of administrative procedures there was no trace of the administrative bodies showing any doubt as to the substantive and fundamental point of view of treating a person who has been living as a Japanese national for 30 some years since birth as an illegally staying foreigner by considering him to have suddenly and retroactively “lost” his nationality and thus unilaterally removing him from his Japanese family register. Furthermore, as stated above, A eventually re-acquired Japanese nationality by naturalization, but it was an acquisition starting from the time of the naturalization grant. Thus, this acquisition does not change the government’s legal position that A has never possessed Japanese nationality (and has always been a foreign national or a stateless person) from the time of birth until the naturalization grant. Consequently, a serious question arises as to how to reconcile such a legal position with the series of facts, including that A has been exercising his right to vote in national elections ever since he turned 20 years old, has visited foreign countries dozens of times using his Japanese passport, and has acquired various national licenses under the presumption that he was a Japanese national. However, the view of the Japanese administrative authorities on this matter is unknown. 2. < Case 10> A person born in Japan who acquired Japanese nationality by birth but was denied his or her nationality retroactively going back to the time of birth after a court decision denying the existence of a parent-child relationship Case 9 above involved an individual born in Japan. Case 10 introduces, in summary, a person born outside Japan who has gone through similar experiences as the person in Case 9. In this case, E, a husband of Japanese nationality, and F, a wife of Chinese nationality, whose residence was in Japan were not blessed with children. E and F registered G, who had been found as a foundling near F’s family home in China, and they had registered G’s birth in China falsely claiming that G was their biological child, subsequently undertaking the process of “reserving” his Japanese nationality at the Japanese embassy in China (as Chinese nationality law does not allow dual citizenship; the moment one “reserves” Japanese nationality he or she loses Chinese nationality). As a result, G arrived in Japan as a Japanese national and had since then been living as a child of E and F. However, at the time when F underwent a renewal procedure of her residency permit in Japan, it was revealed that F was in Japan during the very time when G was born. E and F confessed that G was not their biological child. E and F subsequently had to file a lawsuit to confirm the non-existence of the parent-child relationship between G and themselves with G being the defendant. The decision to confirm the non-existence of G’s 83