난민불인정처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of Egypt nationality, as a visa exemption (B-2). On November 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Seoul Immigration Office, and thereafter, on April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the case to the Defendant on April 16, 2018 upon the change of the place of stay.
B. On August 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that she would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 21, 2018, but the said objection was dismissed on April 21, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, each entry of No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had been detained in the police for a month since he had taken an anti-government demonstration site on October 201 on the ground that he had taken an anti-government demonstration site from Egyptian Republic of Korea on the ground that he had taken an anti-government demonstration site on Oct. 1, 2010, when he was enrolled in the university of Egyptian region. On October 2012, 2012, the plaintiff was detained in the police and was released.
On October 2016, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea and resided in Saudi Arabia, but in Egypt, police officers found the Plaintiff as a house to find the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff absconded to the Republic of Korea.
In the event that the plaintiff returned to his own country, the disposition of this case, which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee, is unlawful despite the possibility of persecution for the above reasons.
B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.