[2] In a case where the Minister of Justice denied refugee status when Gap, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, sing and singing at the music group of the current President candidates for the election campaign, a competitor, applied for refugee status, the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, without sufficiently deliberating on the facts that Gap had a well-founded fear that she would be subject to gambling by the Congo government

1. “persecution” that is a requirement for refugee status refers to “an act causing serious infringement or discrimination against essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom.” A foreigner who files an application for refugee status must prove that there is a “comfortable fear” subject to such persecution (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378, Apr. 25, 2013, etc.).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below consistently stated the reasons for the plaintiff's departure from the Republic of Korea as follows. The court below held that since non-party 3 or non-party 4, who entered the Republic of Korea with the plaintiff, stated to the same purport together with the above purport, the plaintiff's non-party 2 supported non-party 2 because it was not non-party 1, although the non-party 2 was in the Congo, the non-party 2 supported the non-party 2. The non-party 2's election campaign leader's recommendation that the non-party 2 satise music for the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff's house frequently found the plaintiff's house in order to arrest the plaintiff. Thus, the court below decided that the non-party 3 or non-party 4, who entered the Republic of Korea with the plaintiff, made a statement with the intent of the head of the election campaign team, and that the plaintiff's non-party 2's non-party 3 or the defendant's non-party 4's reply cannot be deemed to be justified on the grounds of this case.

3. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. ① Newspapers presented by the Plaintiff were reported during the process of the instant lawsuit after a considerable period of time from the time the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea, and there is no evidence to verify who the Plaintiff’s agent was in charge of the instant lawsuit, ② there is a part that the Plaintiff’s statement in the instant lawsuit is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s statement in the refugee room at Seoul Immigration Office on February 2008. ③ Nonparty 3, who entered the Republic of Korea with the Plaintiff, participated in an election campaign during the first presidential election period for the second election, and participated in an election campaign for the second election, and made it difficult for the Plaintiff to verify who was in charge of the instant lawsuit. However, the Plaintiff’s statement was not consistent with the Plaintiff’s 1-2 months after the date of the first election. Nonparty 1’s entry into the Republic of Korea and Nonparty 4’s allegation that the Plaintiff was in charge of an election campaign during the first election period for the second election, and it was against the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1’s allegation that the result of the first election did not comply with the first election campaign.

B. Nevertheless, the court below held that the Plaintiff constitutes a refugee by believing the contents of the materials submitted by the Plaintiff without sufficiently examining whether the Plaintiff may recognize the authenticity of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff or believe the contents of the documents as they are, consistency and persuasive, and whether the Plaintiff actually joined the bean Sea Disaster Prevention Organization, etc. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of refugee, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)