logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.04.19 2019구단715
난민불인정결정취소
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 is a foreigner of Russian nationality.

On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea for visa exemption (B-1), and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on August 24, 2016 after the expiration of the period of stay.

B. On April 17, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff’s assertion would be subject to persecution as a requirement for refugee status under 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 dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 30, 2018, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on November 29, 2018.

On December 12, 2018, the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal decision of an objection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff owned 30% shares in the Russia, and the president of the company demanded that all of the shares be returned to the Plaintiff.

If the plaintiff did not comply with this, the president of the company used the president of the company to assault and threaten the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff is a member of a political organization, and other political organizations are joining their own organizations and threaten the plaintiff.

Therefore, even though there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from gambling in the event of return to Russia, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on a different premise, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Article 1 and Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention.

arrow