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 is a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”) who entered the Republic of Korea on February 13, 2014 with a visa (B-2) and stays therein.
B. On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant.
On September 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as a “ sufficiently-founded fear that he would be injured” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed to the Minister of Justice on November 7, 2017, but was dismissed on March 21, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from 2010 to 2013, the Plaintiff served in Egypt’s importer of cosmetics.
On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff received the amount equivalent to US$50,00 from the business partner of the said importing company as the advance payment, but was unable to pay the said amount to the said importing company on the wind to be robbery.
The above importer did not supply cosmetics to the above customer who paid the prepaid payment to the Plaintiff and paid the prepaid payment.
As a result, two business partners' employees of the above business partners threatened the Plaintiff to kill the Plaintiff without returning the advance payment, and the Plaintiff left the Egypt around January 2014.
After September 2016, the Plaintiff intended to return the advance payment to Egypt, but was ultimately unable to return it, and two business partners employees, etc. are continuously threatening the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s family members.
Therefore, when the plaintiff returned to Egypt, it is above.