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 entered the Republic of Korea on July 22, 2017, with the nationality of the Socialist Republic of Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietna, hereinafter “Vietnam”).
B. On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on September 11, 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. On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as on November 29, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was the Plaintiff’s principal Buddhistr, and was a character toTol around 2014.
The plaintiff's three villages, which have a clerk of the Gongsan Party in his region, did not go to the dongs, and demanded the plaintiff to open the school again.
On April 5, 2017, the plaintiff's Sam-do, who did not comply with the plaintiff's request, became the plaintiff's house, and made intimidation on April 23, 2017 to kill the plaintiff's house if he did not repent again.
If the plaintiff returns to Vietnam as its home country, it is still likely to be threatened with the plaintiff's life or physical freedom from the third village of the plaintiff.
Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status is unlawful.