beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.10.18 2018구단16119

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. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on May 19, 2016, as foreigners of the nationality of the Russian Feder (hereinafter “Russian”) of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “Russian”), with the status of stay B-1 (Visa exemption).

B. On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on June 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice against the instant disposition. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground on March 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On February 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff participated in the presidential counter- demonstration in Russia, and was arrested later and detained for about 44 hours.

On the date of release, the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle, and one of three persons on board the damaged motor vehicle was the police officer arresting the Plaintiff.

He demanded a large amount of repair costs to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s insurance company refused to pay the insurance proceeds, and the Plaintiff was unable to compensate more than 150,000.

After that, the plaintiff followed the police officer, living together with Novos sk, Crasnok (Krasnok), and the plaintiff listens to the statement that male who cannot identify him as the plaintiff, could not find him.