난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The circumstances leading up to the decision of non-recognition of refugee status ① The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) on July 31, 2017 as a second student of the nationality of Pakistan, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 23, 2017, on the ground that “the Plaintiff was a person who was a person who was a person who was in the instrumentalian, and was threatened by the Islamic village of Pakistan.”
② On October 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff does not constitute a refugee as prescribed by the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act.”
③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on September 3, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion is a chronology, which was threatened with the death of Islamic bridge that requires the opening of the dog, and Islamic bridge found in his house and entered into the Republic of Korea due to the occurrence of the case.
Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
3. In light of the following circumstances revealed by taking full account of the above evidence, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff constitutes a person with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
① Examining the statements made by the Plaintiff at the time of the interview with the Defendant’s public official on September 11, 2017 regarding the instant application for refugee status, the Plaintiff’s wife and children as dependent to the Plaintiff, and all of the Plaintiff’s family members, stated that at the time of the interview, the Plaintiff did not know about the safety of the family members, and rather, “family members are in the face of without any problem.”
. As such,