beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.07.02 2020구단7828

난민불인정처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on September 27, 2017, as a foreigner of the nationality of the Russian Feder (hereinafter “Russian”) of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “Russian”), with the status of stay for visa exemption (B-1).

B. On November 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of refugee status. On March 21, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision not to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “the well-founded fear that would be detrimental to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On April 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice against the instant disposition. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as the instant disposition on October 18, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that: (a) the Plaintiff visited B’s house known to the company on 2017; (b) the Plaintiff forced 10 persons in B and B to join a religious organization; and (c) assaulted and detained the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff was anticipated to detain the Plaintiff to the correctional institution on the ground that the Plaintiff visited Turkey; (b) there was a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution when she returned to Turkey, but the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee was unlawful.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, the Minister of Justice shall engage in race, religion, nationality, and nationality.