beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.26 2016구단554

난민불인정처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, who is a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of India (hereinafter referred to as “ India”), entered the Republic of Korea as a collective tourist visa and stayed in excess of February 6, 2015, the expiry date of his/her stay, and filed a refugee application with the Defendant on March 18, 2015.

B. On December 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee non-recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no “a well-founded fear of persecution,” which is a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” which is a requirement of refugee status.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the said application was dismissed on March 23, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that, around India, he was providing free meal services on the anniversary of the day of the birth of the Sweet (B) in India, and the Plaintiff thought that the Plaintiff was sweeting the sweet and caused the threat. Accordingly, the instant disposition that did not recognize it on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has “a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion,” even if all evidence and arguments submitted by the Plaintiff were considered, and evidence to acknowledge otherwise.