[2] Requirements for the presumption of the authenticity of a document submitted as a foreign official document, and the method of proving the authenticity of a foreign official document submitted by a refugee applicant

[2] According to Article 356(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a public official is deemed to have prepared as a public official in the course of performing his/her duties according to the method and purport of the preparation of a document, the said provision shall be presumed to be a public document. Since Article 356(3) of the said Act applies mutatis mutandis to a document recognized as prepared by a foreign public agency, the method of document submitted by a foreign public agency in order to be presumed to have the authenticity of a document should be externally conform to the method of the official document prepared by the foreign public agency in the course of performing his/her duties, and the purport of the document must be recognized as having been prepared by a foreign public agency in the course of performing his/her duties. In reality, in the case of a foreign public document submitted by a refugee applicant who has many cases where it is difficult to obtain evidence to prove the authenticity of

1. “Anchorage” that is a requirement for refugee status refers to “an act causing serious infringement or discrimination against essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom.” The foreigner applying for refugee status must prove that there is a “contributable fear” subject to such persecution (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378, Apr. 25, 2013).

However, considering the special circumstances of a refugee who cannot obtain evidence easily, the foreigner cannot be required to prove all facts alleged based on objective evidence. If it is reasonable to acknowledge the facts alleged based on the overall credibility of his/her statement, it shall be deemed as proven (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3930, Jul. 24, 2008). The refugee applicant’s statement should not be denied the overall credibility of the applicant’s statement just because the refugee applicant’s statement appears to be somewhat inconsistent or partly distorted in the details of his/her statement when evaluating the refugee applicant’s statement, the applicant’s entire statement should not be denied. Such inconsistency or division should sufficiently reflect the possibility that such inconsistency or division may have arisen from mental shock arising from his/her experience in genuine gambling, limitations on memory following the lapse of time, differences in language and language occurring from cultural and historical background different from the Republic of Korea, etc., and should also sufficiently reflect the core contents of the statement in light of the applicant’s overall credibility, and should not be sufficiently persuasive and consistent with the applicant’s statement in light of the relevant facts.

Meanwhile, according to Article 356(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a public official is deemed to have prepared as a public official in the course of performing his/her duties according to the method and purport of preparing a document, it shall be presumed to be a genuine public document. Since Article 356(3) of the same Act applies mutatis mutandis to a document recognized as prepared by a public agency of a foreign country, in order for a document submitted as a public document to be presumed to have been authentic, the method of document submitted by a public agency of a foreign country shall be in conformity with the method of performing his/her duties and shall be deemed to have been prepared by the public agency of that foreign country in the course of performing his/her duties. In reality, in the case of a foreign public document submitted by a refugee applicant who has many cases where it is difficult to obtain evidence to prove the authenticity of a public document, the document shall not

2. The court below held that the plaintiff was convicted of the defendant's 1's 2nd 5th Mari-Mari-Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri.

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

A. According to the evidence and records duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff asserts that he had been engaged in anti-government activities through UDF in Bangladesh, and that there was no disadvantage to see that the plaintiff had been faced with imminent harm, such as special surveillance or investigation by the government, arrest, etc. In the process of refugee application, the court of first instance reversed the statement that the plaintiff was arrested on the ground that he was a member of UPF in the newspaper of the party concerned in the case of this case. ② While the plaintiff was engaged in anti-government activities with the influence of his father who was killed as an adviser, he did not know what circumstances his father died. ③ The plaintiff's mother and punishment appear to have lived normally without any particular disclosure in Bangladesh, ④ The plaintiff's duty at UPDF merely known the place and time of his passport number, and did not know that there was no objective error in the plaintiff's report on the case of this case, and the plaintiff's statements made within 0 years after 20 years after 3 years' statements were made without any specific reason to know that there was no objective reason for the plaintiff's statement in this case.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statements on the experience or possibility of gambling that the Plaintiff had been engaged in an escape life due to a Mariri, Marina, etc. while engaging in anti-government activities in Bangladesh, etc., to the extent that the Plaintiff met the refugee requirement, as well as not sufficiently specific to the extent that it is recognized as satisfying the refugee requirement. There is an omission in important parts, and there is no consistency or persuasive power, and it is difficult to view that it was derived from the Plaintiff’s old or unstable psychological condition, etc.

B. Meanwhile, the court below's decision is one of the main grounds that the plaintiff would be detrimental to the Government of Bangladesh, which was submitted by the plaintiff on November 21, 2010, and one of the two main grounds for recognizing that the plaintiff would be detrimental to the Government of Bangladesh. However, according to the National Information Report of Bangladesh issued by the UK, the plaintiff can easily seek forged documents related to the investigation agency or the court. ② The plaintiff is the full text of the judgment and evidence No. 42 of the judgment No. 41 (hereinafter referred to as "Second judgment") are the summary of the judgment, and considering that Gap's evidence No. 42 of the judgment (hereinafter referred to as "the second judgment"), Gap's evidence No. 41 is the summary of the judgment, and if the plaintiff did not appear to be subject to a fine with respect to fines not stated in the judgment No. 1 of the second judgment, it is not possible to recognize that the two provisions of the judgment are "no. 1 of the judgment" or "no. 2 of the judgment" as evidence.

C. Furthermore, the facts related to the activities after entry into the Republic of Korea, i.e., the fact that the Plaintiff participated several times in the demonstration that denies the human rights pressure of the Republic of Bangladeshn Government after entry into the Republic of Korea, alone, is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s return to Bangladesh is a well-founded fear in the event that the Plaintiff will return to Bangladesh by doing counter-government activities that would have received the attention of the Government of Bangladesh and return to Bangladesh in the future.

D. As above, in full view of the circumstances that are insufficient to recognize the authenticity and persuasiveness of the Plaintiff’s statement and that are insufficient to recognize the authenticity of each of the above judgments submitted by the Plaintiff or to believe the content thereof as it is, and that the activities in the Republic of Korea alone are insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear that the government would be subject to persecution by Bangladesh, it would be very careful to recognize that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution by the Government of Bangladesh.

E. Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiff is a refugee without sufficiently examining whether the plaintiff's statement is consistent and persuasive, whether the plaintiff's authenticity of the document, such as the decision submitted by the plaintiff, whether it can be recognized as a document or not, whether the plaintiff's anti-government activity in Bangladesh can be recognized as it is, and whether there is a possibility to be stuffed only in the Republic of Korea, etc., and determined that the plaintiff's statement and the document submitted by the plaintiff constitutes a refugee. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of refugee, the criteria for determining the credibility of refugee applicant's statement, the presumption of the authenticity of foreign official document, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)