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. On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff, as a foreigner of the nationality of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”), entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment status, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on March 31, 2017.
B. On April 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fears that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized.
(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition / Each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition of this case is void automatically
A. If the plaintiff's assertion return to China, it is obvious that the plaintiff is a trainee of the Korean government that dealt with it.
The instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as “sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” is null and void as the defect is significant and apparent.
B. 1) Determination 1) In an administrative litigation seeking the invalidity of an administrative disposition by asserting the invalidity of the administrative disposition as a matter of course, the Plaintiff is liable to prove and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010). The mere fact that there is an illegality in the administrative disposition for the purpose of making the administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course is insufficient to say that there is a serious violation of the important part of the laws and regulations, and that the defect is objectively obvious and objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations should be considered from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu8669, Jun. 19