beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.01.19 2016구단28088

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On August 1, 2004, the Plaintiff applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on September 2, 2015 while an alien of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter referred to as "Austria") who entered the Republic of Korea and stayed in the Republic of Korea.

On December 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 25, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as May 31, 2016, and the decision of dismissal was notified to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2016.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion of legitimacy of the instant disposition indicated in Gap’s Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s Nos. 1 and 2 is a community-style member, and when the Plaintiff visited a high-speed village around 2002, her mother made her father to join a local-style organization, and her father made her sacrifice to sacrifice the Plaintiff for the awareness of local-style organization.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff would be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Austria.

Judgment

If the above facts are added to the contents of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution to the plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

The plaintiff is all the mother who wants the father to join the local group, and in addition, he is forced to directly join the father or the local group.