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 Egypt nationality.
On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the Tourism Tong (B-2) status on March 8, 2017, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on April 4, 2017.
B. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion would be subject to persecution 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”) on the ground that there is a well-founded fear that it would be subject to persecution as a requirement for refugee status.
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on November 17, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on September 3, 2018.
On October 1, 2018, the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal decision of an objection.
[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. A. Around 2013, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff take out the business funds closely to the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff reported this to the police; and (c) the said business was arrested and detained by the police.
After release, the above project attempted to kill the plaintiff as a retaliation for the police report, and the plaintiff left the Egypt to avoid this, and entered the Republic of Korea through Malaysia.
Therefore, even though there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from gambling in the event that the Plaintiff returned to Egypt, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on a different premise, should be revoked as it is unlawful.
B. Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.