난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status on March 14, 2012 with the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a non-professional employment (E-9) status on March 14, 2012, and continued to extend the period of stay; (b) the period of stay expires on January 13, 2017; and (c) upon receipt of a departure order on January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on the same day on the same day.
② On June 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not constitute a refugee under the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act, taking full account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s opposition to the belief that she and South East East East Korea were unable to be considered as having been stuffed solely; and (b) the Plaintiff applied for refugee status only after the period of stay when engaging in long-term job-seeking activities; and (c) the Plaintiff applied for refugee status.”
③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on June 12, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff joined the Republic of Vietnam. The Vietnam government was booming the believers, and the Plaintiff’s boomed with respect to the Plaintiff’s religious activities. As such, according to the Plaintiff’s boomed, the Vietnam government applied for the recognition of refugee status in this case where the Plaintiff returned to Vietnam, it is obvious that the Plaintiff would be stuffed by the Vietnam government.
Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
3. (i) On June 28, 2017, in relation to the application for recognition of refugee status of this case, the Plaintiff interviewed with a public official belonging to the Defendant, and at the time of the interview, the Plaintiff believed that all of the family members in Vietnam are believed to be in astronomical. However, the Plaintiff’s entry from the end of 2012, who entered the Republic of Korea.