[2] In a case where the Minister of Justice rejected a refugee status application filed by a Chinese national Gap, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which held that Gap's activities constituted a refugee status without due diligence, even though it should have judged whether Gap's activities had led to the Chinese government's attention, etc., and judged whether Gap's activities constituted a person with sufficient fear of persecution

[2] In a case where the Minister of Justice rejected refugee recognition on the ground that the application for refugee status filed by a Chinese national Gap could not be seen as "a well-founded fear that the refugee status would be harmed" by the Minister of Justice, the case held that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that recognized refugee status by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, in light of the following: (a) Gap did not engage in open and active activities such as illegal assembly or demonstration activities related to the Rose of Sharon in China; (b) there was no such stuff as arrest and detention from the Chinese government; or (c) merely did not engage in general training students; and (d) the time when a public activity related to the Pakistan applied for refugee status was completed; and (b) whether Gap did not participate in the relevant activities for the purpose of recognizing refugee status; and (c) whether Gap's activities led to the attention of the Chinese government; and (d) whether it was a person with a well-founded fear that is sufficiently-founded after the application for refugee status.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

A. “persecution” that is a requirement for refugee status refers to “an act causing serious infringement or discrimination on essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom,” and a foreigner applying for refugee status must prove that there is a “confiscing-founded fear.”

Therefore, in order to recognize as a refugee, it should be the person who entered Korea due to the same gambling as the arrest or detention of a person who entered Korea due to the activities related to the Pakistan subject to punishment in China, and returned to China, who has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Chinese government, or who has a sufficient fear of persecution by the Chinese government when returning to China due to the active and leading activities related to the Pakistan while staying in Korea, and who has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Chinese government when returning to China.

B. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, held that the plaintiffs' following arguments are most of the plaintiffs, namely, that the plaintiffs are engaged in systematic and active activities of the anti-China Communist Party in China, such as identifying the truth of the anti-China Communist Party in China while conducting training in most of the Korean Peninsulas that caused damage to the Korean government as a shipbuilding, and that the defendant's disposition to deny refugee status against the plaintiffs is unlawful, since there are sufficient grounds for persecution from the training in the country when they return to China, and the above activities in the Republic of Korea during the anti-China Communist Party in Korea, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs were those who entered the Republic of Korea due to active training in the country of China, and that the activities related to the Roses that were conducted while staying in the Republic of Korea cannot be deemed as those who have sufficient grounds for recognizing that they might be affected by special attention of the Chinese government. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of refugee status.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In full view of the admitted evidence, the court below decided that Plaintiff 4 started training for the Korean War in 1,00 after entry into the Republic of Korea, and that Plaintiff 2 participated in the activities of the Anti-China Party by distributing historical data on the actual status of gambling for the Korean War in 200, against Chinese defectors, and that Plaintiff 4 actively participated in the activities of the 1st century, including Plaintiff 4, from December 5, 2009 to December 19, 2009, which dealt with the activities of the 1st century, as a person responsible for contact with the order keeper at the time of the 4th anniversary of the fact that Plaintiff 4 had dealt with the activities of the 1st century in the Republic of Korea. The court below decided that Plaintiff 1 actively participated in the activities of the 1st century of the 1st century held before the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd Korean War.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

In other words, (1) Plaintiff 4 filed an application for refugee treatment on the ground that he/she was unable to enter the Republic of Korea on November 13, 2008, on the ground that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she did not know of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would not have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the fact that he/she would have become aware of the refugee status.

C. Nevertheless, the court below held that Plaintiff 4 was a refugee by sufficiently examining whether Plaintiff 4 was involved in the strike-related activities solely for the purpose of recognizing the status of a refugee, and whether Plaintiff 4’s activities led to the attention of the Chinese government, and judged whether he was a person with a well-founded fear of persecution. However, the court below recognized that he was a refugee with due care only for several strike-related activities conducted after the application for refugee status, which led to the misapprehension of the legal principles on the concept of refugee status, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The Defendant’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff 4 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals by Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal by the same Plaintiffs are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)