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 June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Federia (hereinafter referred to as “Syria”), and stayed in the Republic of Korea for a short-term period of stay (C-3) extension on a one-time basis, and stayed in the Republic of Korea on August 29, 2013, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on August 29, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant refugee application”). B.
The defendant, on December 30, 2013, promulgated with sufficient grounds for persecution (the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; the same shall apply hereinafter)
) On the ground that Article 2 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist, a disposition not to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was made.
C. On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 16, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on June 27, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is an Egbo of the ASEAN's origin from the ASEAN.
The plaintiff has resided in Aba (Abbba) in Abari State while leaving B, which is a high-speed village in around 196.
At the time of the Plaintiff’s birth, the Plaintiff was selected as the agenda of the whole communication (C) of the native village at the time of the birth, and the said senior village forced the Plaintiff to become an agenda through the Plaintiff’s mother, but the Plaintiff rejected it on the ground that it is the senior citizens of the native village.
The plaintiff's mother was kidnapped, and around June 2013, the plaintiff's mother was forced to recover the plaintiff and succeed to private post.
Therefore, in the event that the plaintiff returns to Austria, there is a well-founded fear of persecution for religious reasons.