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 August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term visit (C-3) and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on January 25, 2017 (hereinafter “instant application”).
B. On March 26, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
C. On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but was dismissed on September 14, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff, while supporting the Plaintiff’s party B at the time of residing in the four arms, provided that the Plaintiff provided loans from the villagers in the high-speed village.
However, as an illegal armed organization, C (C; hereinafter “instant armed organization”) forced the Plaintiff to pay the said association money, and the Plaintiff provided four arms police with confidential information of the instant armed organization, and as a result, the remaining dynamics of the leader of the instant armed organization were killed by the four arms police.
For this reason, the Plaintiff is threatened by the instant armed organization.
In addition, while the plaintiff was originally an spoke, he was married to a spoke during his stay in the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the plaintiff's family and relatives in the four arms are not considered to be good for the plaintiff, and the spoke is a kind of spoke, which is threatened to the spokeist, other than a spoke, in the four arms whose spoke is the majority, and the plaintiff is also a kind of spokeist, which is threatened to the spokeist.