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. On January 6, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Pakistan for short-term stay (C-2) in the Republic of Pakistan, and stayed in the Republic of Korea upon obtaining permission for change of sojourn status on March 26, 2008, and filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant on March 3, 2015, for which the period of sojourn expires (D-8 September 26, 2013).
B. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of 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, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff, a Simpis forest, was under dispute with the neighboring hydrophs forest as a matter of drinking water at around 2006 at the time of the farming day and around 2006, and was subject to intimidation from 7-8 persons in hydrophs forest, and was under threat that the Plaintiff would die once again due to the same problem even around 207.
At the time, the plaintiff was living in China for six months after leaving the Republic of Korea, and entered the Republic of Korea.
During that process, when the Plaintiff visited Pakistan on July 15, 201 in order to visit his family on July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff suffered serious bodily injury such as head, loss, etc. and accompanied by the victim's head, loss, etc. have reached the death.
At the time, the above hydrosslocks threatened the plaintiff to die when they are considered again.
Therefore, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful, even though the Plaintiff’s return to Korea constitutes a refugee who is likely to be detrimental to religious stay.
(b) Relevant statutes (Refugee).