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 May 15, 200, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as an industrial trainee and stayed in Korea as of May 15, 2000, and changed the status of stay on May 16, 2002. On October 11, 2004, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with B of the nationality of the Republic of Korea ("C"), and changed the status of stay to the status of spouse of the citizen on December 1, 2004.
B. On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of stay with the head of the Changwon Immigration Office. However, on December 16, 2013, the head of the Changwon Immigration Office rejected the extension of the period of stay, etc. on the grounds that the Plaintiff was married in Pakistan and married with B again in the Republic of Korea after being married with Pakistan, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disapproval disposition (hereinafter referred to as “litigation extension lawsuit”) on December 26, 2013 with the Changwon District Court 2013Guhap3281, but was dismissed on November 14, 2014.
C. On the other hand, on December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal for refugee status with the Defendant (which is pending in Busan High Court Decision 2014Nu11826). However, on January 27, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for refugee status with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff appealed against the Plaintiff and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 27, 2015, but was dismissed on April 13, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the above land to D and E (hereinafter “Lessees”) for a short-term period of two years in order to lease the land possessed by his father around 2007. The Plaintiff requested the delivery of the above land around March 2009, which was around the expiration of the above lease period, and the lessee knew that he forged documents and transferred the above land in his name.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff.