장애인등록거부처분취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on January 19, 2017 and the disposition on January 2017 against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The reasoning of the court’s judgment on the prior defense of the merits is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the aforementioned reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. According to Article 31 of the Refugee Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion of refugee status has a direct right to demand social security equivalent to Korean nationals, even if the relevant statute does not separately provide for the right of recognized refugee status holders.
In addition, if the registration of a person with disabilities is not recognized for a recognized person with disabilities, it would be more disadvantageous than other foreigners who can apply for the registration of a national or a person with disabilities of the Republic of Korea, and it also violates the principle
Therefore, the first and second dispositions of this case rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for registration of disabled persons in spite of being able to register disabled persons pursuant to Article 31 of the Refugee Act and Article 32(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities are unlawful.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff, who is a refugee, is entitled to register the disabled and receive welfare services pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, Articles 31 and 30(1) of the Refugee Act, Article 24 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”), Article 24 of the 1951 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, and the right to receive the relevant welfare services, based on the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the facts recognized as above, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 through 11, 5 and 6, and the purport of the entire arguments.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff, who is recognized as a refugee, is a foreigner under Article 32-2 of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act.