beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.25 2016구단25119

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of Egypt nationality, entered the Republic of Korea without a visa and stayed, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on January 5, 2016.

B. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3, Eul 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased and operated a bus with a bank loan in a country of nationality, and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a 25-year sentence as a crime of default of bank obligations and became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite high possibility that the plaintiff would be subject to gambling when he returns to the country of nationality is illegal.

(b) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "refugee" means a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected from the country of his/her nationality due to well-founded fear that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "state of his/her nationality");

C. The Plaintiff’s argument is merely a matter of criminal procedure of nationality, not merely on the ground of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group or political opinion.

참조조문