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. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with visa exemption (B-1) status on January 15, 2015, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on May 3, 2016.
B. On June 21, 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 filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on June 30, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 22, 2016.
[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 that the plaintiff applied for refugee status in order to legally stay in the Republic of Korea, and when returning to the Thailand, it is likely to be threatened by the husband, such as assault.
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 term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.
(Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act). However, the above reasons alleged by the Plaintiff do not constitute a persecution on the grounds of “human race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group or political opinion,” and her husband.