(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.17 2018구단19842

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.17 2018구단19842

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 February 14, 2017, as foreigners of the nationality of the Russian Feder (hereinafter “Russian”) of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “Russian”), with the status of stay B-1 (Visa exemption).

B. On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on March 20, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by 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”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On April 12, 2018, 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 on September 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was born in the Republic of Tajiistan (hereinafter “the Republic of the Republic of Germany”), and was born in the Republic of Taskistan (hereinafter “Masistan”), around 2006, after acquiring the Russistan’s nationality, and operated the business in Russistia mainly.

The Plaintiff was supplied with paint in Takikan and sold them at Russia. However, around December 2016, Russia, who sought the Plaintiff’s store, demanded money of USD 100,000,00, and made a threat that the Plaintiff would die without giving money, and did not prepare money again, the Plaintiff used assault on the ground that Russia did not prepare money again.

The plaintiff returned to Takkistan by avoiding the above threats of Russia, and there are business partnerships of Takistan.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2021.04.07 2020구단18484

-서울행정법원 2019.11.14 2019구단15465

-서울행정법원 2020.05.28 2020구단4911

-서울행정법원 2018.10.18 2018구단16119

-서울행정법원 2020.07.02 2020구단7828