난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On July 4, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as “Naria”) as a foreigner of nationality, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on September 7, 2015 after the expiration of the period of stay (C-3 September 3, 2015).
On February 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that it would be detrimental to the State” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).
On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff received a notice of decision on non-recognition of refugee status and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 7, 2016, but was dismissed on October 27, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4-7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was changed into a Korean classical school. The Plaintiff’s father was the president of the traditional religion of the high class B village, and the Plaintiff’s father was the head of the Plaintiff’s father, who was a village head after the Plaintiff’s father’s death, to succeed to the Plaintiff’s head’s position. However, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s punishment were refused, and third villages were threatened with intimidation and physical threats from around 2004, and around February 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Plaintiff’s punishment.
In the event that the plaintiff returns to ASEAN, it is likely to be detrimental to persecution for this reason.
The instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.
B. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.