[난민인정불허결정처분취소][미간행]
[1] In a case where, after leaving the country of nationality, a “sufficient fear of persecution” occurred in the wind to express political opinions in the country of residence, whether the recognition of refugee status may be denied on the ground that he/she provided the cause of persecution to be protected as a refugee (negative)
[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in case where Gap, a Myanmar, who had been employed and worked in the company from the date of entry into the Republic of Korea, applied for refugee status on the ground that he could be stuffed when he returns to the Republic of Korea due to his political activities in the Republic of Korea as the crackdown on illegal aliens was strengthened, but the Minister of Justice rejected this application, the case affirming the judgment below holding that even if Gap participated in the political assembly of the Burma National Democratic Union (NLD)-LA branch and joined as a member, it is not sufficient to view that the mere mere fact that Gap participated in or participated in the political assembly of the Burma National Assembly (NLD)-LA branch before the Union of Myanmar but was a refugee with sufficient well-founded fear of persecution in the event that he returns to the Republic of
[1] Articles 2 subparag. 2-2 and 76-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 2-2 and 76-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Du19539 Decided July 24, 2008
Plaintiff (Attorney Correction decoration et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Minister of Justice
Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu28962 decided June 25, 2008
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the first ground for appeal
In a case where “a well-founded fear of persecution” occurred as a result of an act such as expressing political opinions in a country of residence after leaving the country of nationality, the recognition of refugee status cannot be denied solely on the ground that he/she provided the cause of persecution for the purpose of being protected as a refugee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du19539, Jul. 24, 2008).
In determining whether the first instance judgment, as cited by the lower court, has “a well-founded fear of persecution,” which serves as a requirement for refugee status, during the so-called stay in the Plaintiff, the issuance of a passport according to the Plaintiff’s economic purpose and the normal procedure, and the circumstances concerning the fact of illegal stay in Korea and the crackdown on illegal aliens in Korea, are erroneous. Thus, the grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.
However, this error by the court below, however, does not affect the conclusion of the judgment as long as it is justified, and the grounds of appeal as to such error cannot be accepted.
2. On the second ground for appeal
The term “persecution” which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status means “any act causing serious infringement of or discrimination against essential human dignity, including threats to life, body or freedom,” and the applicant for recognition of refugee status is proved by a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status. However, considering the special circumstances of refugee status, the applicant cannot require the relevant foreigner to prove the entire alleged facts based on objective evidence. However, if it is reasonable to recognize the alleged facts based on the credibility of the overall statement in light of the following: the course of entry, the period between entry and departure, the background of the application for refugee status, the situation of the country of nationality, the degree of fear of subjective fear, the political, social, and cultural environment of the region in which the applicant resides, the degree of fear of fear of his/her ordinary people feel in the same situation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3930, Jul. 24, 2008, etc.).
The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the above legal principles and records, even though the plaintiff participated in the political assembly of the NLD-LA branch from December 2002 and joined as a member on August 31, 2003. However, the mere fact that the plaintiff was merely engaged in a demonstration before the Myanmar Embassy or engaged in a demonstration with a photograph is insufficient to deem that the plaintiff constitutes a refugee with sufficient well-founded fear that the plaintiff might be harmed by his/her political activity in the Republic of Korea. The above judgment of the court below is justified in light of the above legal principles and records.
The judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the ground of appeal pointing out any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the fact-finding of the court below does not
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)