난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of a decision not to recognize refugee status;
A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on September 23, 2017, with the status of stay for a short-term visit (C-3) by a third party of the third party’s nationality (B%).
B. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant for refugee status on the ground that “any threat may be posed to a dead person.” However, on November 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is deemed not to be a refugee under the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act,” and the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on September 3, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred in a fighting disaster between both teams during the Yegal Games, where the Plaintiff was present at the Senag, and the injured occurred. In response to the Plaintiff’s determination of the Plaintiff as the perpetrator, there was an attack against the Plaintiff, or a threat against the Plaintiff’s other team’s participation on the street.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in the Republic of Korea with his family.
Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
3. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, “persecution” which is a requirement for recognition of refugee should be limited to “human, religious, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.”
However, on November 1, 2017, according to the Plaintiff’s statement at the time of interview (Evidence B No. 6) relating to the application for refugee status at the Immigration Office and the statement at this court, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status.