난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of a decision not to recognize refugee status;
A. On October 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status on December 4, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a student B of the Republic of Lberia’s nationality (B-1); and (b) on December 4, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for refugee status on the ground that “C in Maberia’s Matern C is a confidential organization of men who had existed in several century in the north, west, and China’s region.”
② On January 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize the refugee status against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on October 27, 2016.
③ The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the foregoing decision of non-recognition of refugee status (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan33806) with the Seoul Administrative Court. However, on March 31, 2017, the dismissal ruling was pronounced, and the said ruling became final and conclusive on April 22, 2017.
On the other hand, on April 25, 2017, after the expiration of the filing period, the Plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal to the above court on April 25, 2017, but was issued an order to dismiss the petition of appeal on April 26, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed an immediate appeal on May 23, 2017, but the immediate appeal was dismissed on May 23, 2017 (Seoul High Court 2017Du1195). While the Plaintiff filed the reappeal, the reappeal was dismissed on September 26, 2017
(Supreme Court Decision 2017No702). B.
On November 14, 2017, the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status again with the Defendant on the same day.
② On April 17, 2019, the Defendant’s statement against the Plaintiff on April 17, 201, stating that “The details of the Plaintiff’s death and the father’s family’s gambling fall short of the commission and reliability, the Plaintiff’s father’s assertion that he was killed is difficult to believe as it is, and other statements and evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion are insufficient, the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement related to gambling.