난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons for the decision not to recognize refugee status ① The Plaintiff entered the Republic of India on March 29, 2019 on short-term visit (C-3) by the Republic of India as a student of the Republic of India’s nationality, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on May 16, 2019 on the ground that “any threat of punishment due to a property dispute between siblingss” was “a threat of punishment due to a property dispute between siblingss.”
② On May 31, 2019, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff’s assertion and statement to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2019, that “The details of the punishment and punishment recorded at the time of application are different from the time of interview, and that the company’s personal information was divided into profits, reversed the statement to divide the company’s assets deposited in the bank again, stated that the company was directly operating the travel company which was not registered in a regular manner, and stated that the company was promptly in a foreign country immediately due to verbal intimidation. In light of the above, the Defendant was doubtful of having been subject to actual intimidation. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion and statement to the Republic of Korea after receiving verbal intimidation from the punishment, but it is difficult to completely trust the Plaintiff’s assertion and statement, such as confirmation of the fact that the company filed an application for visa in Korea had already been filed before the case. Even if part of the assertion was acknowledged, there was only one verbal intimidation from the punishment so argued by the Plaintiff, which does not constitute a cause for personal threat under the Refugee Act and the Refugee Convention, and thus, it should be resolved through its judicial system.”
③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on December 23, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion became erroneous in the Republic of Korea since he/she was threatened with life from the siblings and property disputes in India.
Therefore, the plaintiff is therefore.