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 October 10, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on October 10, 201 as a foreigner of the Democratic Republic of Congo (hereinafter “Congo”), and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on December 23, 201.
B. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 25, 2013, but the said objection was dismissed on April 11, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff engaged in human rights activities at a human rights organization called “C” established by B around March 2005. From 2005 to 2006, the Plaintiff stored D and organized a group and events.
In addition, E has been engaged in F (F and subsequent change of the name of G) from 201, and from January 201, 201, E was committed voluntarily by the Government of the Congo and was confined to prisons. On any day, there is a well-founded fear to the effect that the Plaintiff might be subject to persecution by the government if he returns to the Congo, such as he was forced to enter prisons and to shotly shotly shot and to cause disturbance, and he was forced to use the gap.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
C. Taking into account all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and all the circumstances asserted in this court, the Plaintiff is subject to the 'bruptive requirement’ provided by the requirements of refugee, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the purport of the entire arguments.