beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.31 2015구단22663

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 October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on July 29, 2015 while entering the Republic of Pakistan (E-9) as an alien of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Pakic Republic of Pakistan").

On August 18, 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 that would be subject to 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 September 14, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 14, 2015.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition stated in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 was made from around December 20, 2014 by the members of the TPP (TP) organization TPP (TP) with the NP party from around December 20, 2014.

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 might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in the case that the plaintiff returned to Pakistan.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be seen when adding the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including paper numbers) to the above facts, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The risk of the lelebs is a social issue because the universal risk existing in a part of the Pakistan is only a social issue, and in itself, it cannot be a reason for refugee application, and the lebsians specified the plaintiff.