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 entered the Republic of Korea on May 8, 2017, with the status of stay C-4 (short-term Employment) of the Republic of India (hereinafter “ India”).
B. On August 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant. On September 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear that there is a risk of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
C. On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice against the instant disposition. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as on November 29, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion is a patriarche who has resided in the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea.
From around 2009, the Plaintiff was working to help B, a party in the region where the other party was closed, and became a party member of B around August 201, and became the general member of the youth organization of B from September 2015.
Since February 2016, C party members, who were opposing parties, began to threaten the Plaintiff to murder more than B party members. Since May 2016, C party members led to the fact that C party members were to take up the B party in the election implemented around May 2016, which led to the fact that C party members, who became the opposing party members were to exercise violence against the Plaintiff around July 20, 2016.
If the plaintiff returns to India, he will still be threatened with life or physical freedom from the party members of the C Party.