난민불인정결정취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs are foreigners of Russian nationality, and the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) is the mother of Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff2”) and Plaintiff C (hereinafter “Plaintiff3”).
B. On April 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay for visa exemption (B-1) and applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant on May 20, 2019.
C. On August 7, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on grounds of well-founded fear that the Plaintiffs’ assertion would be subject to persecution as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 30, 2019, but the Minister of Justice dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ objections on February 6, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The husband of the Plaintiff 1 asserted that the Plaintiff 1 had continuously exercised violence against the Plaintiff 1 after marriage, and the Plaintiff 1 gave a long period of time to the Plaintiff 1.
In particular, since 2014 when the plaintiff 1 gave birth to the plaintiff 2, the husband's assault was serious, and the husband threatened the plaintiff 1 by asserting that the plaintiff 3 is not his or her father.
The Plaintiffs may be threatened with life when they return to the Republic of Korea with their husband and father after entering the Republic of Korea where they return to the Republic of Korea with Russia.
Notwithstanding these circumstances, each of the dispositions of this case by the defendant, which did not recognize the plaintiffs as refugee, should be revoked as illegal.
Even if there is no independent ground for recognition of refugee to plaintiffs 2 and 3, a long-term spouse.