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 March 5, 2013 with the nationality of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (hereinafter “Ethiopia”), and stayed in the Republic of Korea on the basis of the General Training (D-4) status on March 5, 2013, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on December 19, 2013, prior to the expiration of the period of stay ( December 28, 2013).
B. On July 15, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny 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 be subject to persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was born in Ethiopia Athiopia and worked in a construction company as a technician before entering the Republic of Korea.
On 2003, the Plaintiff joined as a party member of the UDJ (UDJ for Demmocy and Justice) which is one day after securing seats within the Assembly, and performed external activities to publicize the party and to seek support from the public by attaching a campaign posters for the party.
On May 2003, the Plaintiff was arrested to the police on the ground of the attachment of the posters around E.C. (S. around January 201, 201). After the two months, the Plaintiff was arrested to the police on the ground of the party publicity.
The plaintiff was arrested at each time after several hours of arrest, but around January 2006, he was arrested by the police for the reason that he participated in the demonstration for the purpose of political propaganda, and his whereabouts could not be known, and the plaintiff himself also feel fear that he would be detrimental to the authority's gambling due to political pressure.
The plaintiff belongs to the party, and strong support for the criticism of the party and the party.