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. The plaintiff is well-known.
A foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea"), who entered the Republic of Korea on September 2, 2016, with the status of stay D-4 (General Training).
B. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on May 15, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition on June 7, 2017, and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground on March 21, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was not a kind of friendly to the Plaintiff, there was a misunderstanding that the Plaintiff had been providing many support with the depth of the water.
B around 2016, in relation to the Kingdom of Robru, from a riot in the Carse area, died in line with the total amount, and it is presumed that it was killed as a human being related to the Kingdom of Robru.
The plaintiff has been living with B without economic ability, and all persons who have died and worked together with B have been living with B.
The country of origin is the state of driving away by the government.
If you return to Korea, it is impossible to do so.
Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status is unlawful.