beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.09.03 2015구단6975

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 13, 2013 while entering the Republic of Canada for a short-term visit visa (C-3 and 90 days of stay) (hereinafter referred to as "C-3") and staying there.

On May 26, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on June 9, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as April 2, 2015.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition as indicated in the Evidence A, Nos. 1 through 3 (including the paper number), Nos. 1 and 2, was made by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s origin from the Republic of Korea, Mabeng-si, Mabeng-si, Mari-ri, Maben-si, Ach-ro, and his parents died before the death of his parents, and the pro-Japanese of pro-Japanese was adopted by the Plaintiff.

However, on March 1, 2013, after university graduation, the plaintiff tried to sexual assault the plaintiff who visited both sides's house, and the plaintiff's resistance to this, and the two parts were killed.

However, both mothers caused the Plaintiff to die with bad faith, and forced the Plaintiff to comply with the so-called insufficient consciousness, and the Plaintiff, who is a sagdocian, has been able to comply with this, and has no choice but to deal with it.

The defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though there is a high possibility that the plaintiff would be stuffed from both families when he returns to Kamera.

Judgment

It is possible to understand the above facts of recognition by adding the contents of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 and the whole purport of the pleading.