beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.11.28 2019구합2460

난민불인정처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea and application for refugee recognition - Nationality: Kazaktan - Entry: September 23, 2017 (Status B1): - Date of application for refugee recognition: November 22, 2017

Defendant’s decision to recognize refugee status as of February 25, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”): Grounds for not falling under “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol” (based on recognition)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was threatened with the coercion of murdering in lieu of B, from the friendships of B, who committed murder in Kazaktan, and thus, the Plaintiff could be subject to imminent harm if the Plaintiff returned to Kazaktan. This constitutes a reasonable promulgation.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.

(No. 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status, refers to “any act causing serious infringement or discrimination on essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom,” and the fact that there is a “comfortable fear” subject to such persecution must be attested by a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378 Decided April 25, 2013). Even in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the threat, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is race, religion, nationality, and specific.