난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on September 9, 2015, with the status of stay C-3 (short-term visit) of the Republic of India (hereinafter “ India”).
B. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on March 3, 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 that there is a risk of persecution” as stipulated in 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. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition on March 9, 2017, and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as on July 18, 2017.
[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. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Sildo that had been residing in India punja (Punja). The Plaintiff supported B(B) political parties, and was demanded from April 2015 to join C as his/her political party and to support his/her party candidates.
Upon the plaintiff's refusal of its demand, C and their relatives assaulted the plaintiff without discrimination before the police station on June 11, 2015, and tried to shot the plaintiff.
When the plaintiff returns to his own country, it is likely to be threatened with the freedom of life or physical freedom from the applicants of the above SDA party.
Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status should be revoked as it is unlawful.
B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act is determined.