beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.10.12 2017구단68793

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 May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) status on short-term stay on May 27, 2015, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on June 9, 2015.

B. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff 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 on the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff was notified of the instant disposition on January 20, 2016, and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on February 19, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on April 21, 2017.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion B (hereinafter "B") and C'C' below

A) Around May 2012, the Republic of Korea is an organization asserting the independence of the region of the ASEANn Republic of Korea (Biafra), and the ASEANn Government was faced with B and C. The Plaintiff joined the organization of B and C as a member and paid monthly membership fees. In particular, C’s activities as the unit of the branch of the Avia (Ba) State (Ndoki), and Dong Jae-do participated in the Avia movement around September 2013. Around February 2015, the Plaintiff attended the meeting with 200 members of the United Nations branch office, including D, at the meeting held in Enugu, and at the same time, 50 members were arrested by police and military personnel who participated in the meeting, and 30 Do Do Do 30 were included in D including D.

When the father of the plaintiff who opposed to the plaintiff's non-flap activities became aware of the fact that D was arrested, the plaintiff's father who was involved in the plaintiff's non-flap activities would not unbold the plaintiff with the birth of his birth.