난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The details of the decision on the recognition of refugee status: ① The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on November 3, 2017 with his/her nationality B obtained visa exemption (B-1) from Malaysia, and filed an application for refugee status on December 29, 2017 with the Defendant on the ground that “A divorce was made due to domestic violence in south, etc., and is threatened by not cancelling the application for divorce.”
② On May 22, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s assertion does not fall under the grounds for refugee status prescribed in the Refugee Act, and is a matter to be resolved by requesting assistance from its judicial agencies, and that it would be possible to give alternative communication in the event it is not adequate to do so.”
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 Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. All South Korea in the Plaintiff’s alleged Malaysia leads to bullying of the Plaintiff’s family and continued to find where the Plaintiff is anywhere.
If the plaintiff returns to Malaysia, there is a risk of violence from Malaysia.
Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.
3. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, “persecution” which serves as the requirement for recognition of refugee status should be limited to “a race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”
The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff by itself do not constitute “human race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion,” which is the cause of gambling that serves as a requirement for recognition of refugee status.
Therefore, the plaintiff's status.