난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The circumstances leading up to the decision to recognize refugee status: (a) The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on July 27, 2017 with a single-term visit (C-3) as a second-born male of Pakistanan nationality; and (b) on August 4, 2017, filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on the ground of “a threat of the police”.
② On August 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “In light of the fact that the Plaintiff made a statement different from the application at the time of the interview, the Plaintiff does not seem to have received any special attention from the Government, and that the Plaintiff left Korea after the departure inspection was normally completed, the Plaintiff is deemed not to be a person subject to the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on February 14, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a member of Pakistan, who is recognized as an illegal terrorist organization in Pakistan, while performing his duties as a member of the staff of C, who is aware of all of the secrets of C, and thus, entered the Republic of Korea and applied for the recognition of refugee status in this case. The Plaintiff may die in the event that the Plaintiff returned to Pakistan.
Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
3. In light of the following circumstances revealed by taking full account of all the above evidence, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff constitutes a person with fear of persecution sufficient grounds to recognize that the Plaintiff is likely to be injured on the ground that he/she is an assistant of C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
① On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the recognition of refugee status in the instant case, and at the time of interview with the public officials belonging to the Defendant, the Pacific Government C.