In a case where the head of the Seoul Immigration Office rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status against a Korean national female Gap who filed an application for refugee status, the case holding that the above disposition was unlawful on the ground that there is a well-founded fear to deem that the above disposition is likely to be harmful on the ground of "the status of a member of a specific social group of the same-sex baby" when Gap returned to Korea due to

In a case where the head of the Seoul Immigration Office applied for refugee status, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu took a disposition not to recognize refugee status against a female citizen A on the ground that he/she could not be recognized that he/she had been faced with a well-founded fear that he/she would suffer from gambling, the case held that the above disposition was unlawful on the ground that there was a well-founded fear that Gap could be affected by gambling on the ground of "the status of a member of a specific social group of the same-sex," in light of the fact that he/she was the same-sex, the community resident instructed his/her mother (her mother) to send him/her to the village, and the fact that the mother (her mother) and the female were killed in the house of his/her mother (her mother) after two months thereafter, and that he/she did not effectively protect the same-sex from the pressure of his/her local residents and effectively.

Article 2 subparag. 3 and Article 76-2 of the Immigration Control Act; Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees; Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees

Plaintiff (Law Firm Branch, Attorneys Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seoul Immigration Office

April 4, 2013

1. On November 8, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition revoking refugee status recognition made against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea for short-term stay status (C-2, 90 days) as a well-known female, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on April 8, 2011.

B. On November 8, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff may not be recognized as being subject to “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in 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. On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection against the Plaintiff on June 19, 2012, but granted a humanitarian stay permit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On the following grounds, the Plaintiff’s instant disposition was unlawful on the following grounds: (a) there is a risk of harming the Plaintiff, and (b) there is a different premise.

(1) The Plaintiff is a same-sex.

(2) The government of the Republic of Korea is punishing and suppressing same-sexs under the law.

(3) Around two months prior to the Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff’s her mother sent a warning to the Plaintiff’s her mother’s “in a village suspected of having same sex” to the Plaintiff’s her mother, and on February 21, 201, the Plaintiff’s her mother and her mother died.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 76-2(1) of the Refugee Convention, Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, an administrative agency shall recognize a foreigner in the Republic of Korea who is unable or does not want the protection of the country of his/her nationality due to well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as a refugee under the Refugee Convention upon the request of the foreigner.

The term "persecution" which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status can be deemed as "act causing serious infringement of or discrimination against essential human dignity, including threats to life, body or freedom," and it is necessary to prove that there is a "comfortablely-founded fear" subject to such persecution. However, considering the special circumstances of refugee status, it is reasonable to recognize the facts based on the credibility of the overall statement in light of the following: the course of entry, the period from entry to refugee application, the period from entry, the background of refugee application, the situation of the country of nationality, the degree of fear of subjective fear, the political, social, and cultural environment of the region in which the applicant resides, the degree of fear of his/her ordinary people feel in the same situation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3930, Jul. 24, 2008).

(2) In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 13 (including the number Nos. 10), Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6, and 8, and the plaintiff's results of the plaintiff's newspaper and the overall purport of oral argument, the plaintiff is a same-sex, and the community residents instructed the plaintiff's mother to present the plaintiff's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers

(A) The credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement

With respect to the fact that the Plaintiff was the same-sex, and the community residents instructed the Plaintiff’s mother to produce the Plaintiff in the village on the ground that the Plaintiff was the same-sex, and that the Plaintiff died of the Plaintiff’s mother’s her mother and her mother after two months from the time when the community residents’ warning was issued, the Plaintiff made a consistent statement at the refugee site held on October 26, 201 and the Plaintiff’s newspaper held on April 4, 2013 (the Plaintiff was actually well-known at the time of the above refugee site, and the departure date was “I.D.,” but it appears to be consistent with the Plaintiff’s testimony at the time of departure to “I.D., 201,” that “I.D., 201,” which shows that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff’s family might suffer from exposure to the same-sex disease, such as the Plaintiff’s exposure to stress, and that it appears to have consistently expressed that the Plaintiff’s family was “I.D., 2011,” and thus, there is no likelihood that the Plaintiff’s symptoms 121.

(B) The situation of the same-sex marriage in the Republic of Korea

1) The Act regulates sexual intercourses on the basis of the Criminal Act that commits a crime against the order of the nature that is well-known. The Anti-sex Acts submitted to the Council on September 25, 2009 are punished not only for sexual intercourses but also for the attempt of sexual intercourses, arrangement, encouragement, and non-report of sexual intercourses, etc. on the ground that there is no detailed provision dealing with anti-sexs in the existing criminal law. The Act provides that sexual intercourses between the same sexs shall be punished by death, and where aggravated for reasons such as habitual offenders, etc., the Act is pending in the Council by 2011.

2) Although the case where the same-sex behavior was punished in U.S. was not confirmed, the police arrested the person who attempted to engage in the same-sex behavior on July 201, and the NGO court charged him of the same-sex behavior on July 15, 2011 as the “non-permanent act.” The same-sex was subject to threats to social harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and well-being in U.S. and the access to medical services was refused. Furthermore, discriminatory practices prevent NGO from obtaining the official NGO status by registering the NGO with the NGO committee (the report on the status of human rights on May 24, 2012).

3) On October 2010, 2010, the newspaper company located in Cambodia, "rawls's tons," disclosed 100 same-sex photographs, names, and addresses. Of the above 100 same-sexs, the Nonparty was killed as tata by the deceased, and four same-sexs were subject to sales from the street.

4) On November 18, 2009, the appellate court of the UK maintained the conclusion of the judgment below rejecting the claim of JM by dismissing the appeal of the UK on the ground that “There is no sufficient evidence that there has been violence against the same-sexs in the U.K., and limited evidence that there is no clear evidence that there is a discrimination against the same-sexs in the U.K., and that there is no arrest or gambling against the same-sexs,” in the appellate court of the case revoking the disposition revoking the refugee status recognition for the same-sexs in the U.K., which was issued on November 18, 2009. However, the guidelines for the refugee status of the immigration country of the U.K. issued on the same-sexs in the U.K. after the above judgment are as follows.

A) In the U.S., the same-sex behavior is illegal and may be put into life imprisonment. However, there is no evidence to show that there was a person who was sentenced to life imprisonment on the ground of sexual exploitation. The State’s Guidelines in 2008 indicate that the case did not reveal that there was a general gambling based on the sexual inclination in 2008. However, even though the High Court of U.S. ruled in 2008 that the constitutional rights are applied to all people regardless of sexual orientation in 2008, the state’s situation is currently the subject of threat to sexual harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and peace. This may be subject to gambling in individual cases, and the authorities generally do not provide effective protection to the same-sexs (e.g., guidelines for recognition of refugee status in this country).

B) If same-sexs are socially hostiles, they may move to another region and avoid social hostiles. However, given that the same-sex-sexs attitude toward the nation’s overall part, it is difficult to find safety through internal movements. In the case of HJ (HJ), the highest court pointed out that if the fear of gambling in a new region leads to the person, the internal movement is not an answer (3.8.108.10).

C) Individual cases should be examined according to their own truth. The person in charge should recognize refugee status of the country of immigration (3.8.11. of the permanent state of immigration) inasmuch as the claimant considers same-sexs and the person in charge of fostering are considered as one of the members of a specific social group, if the claimant concludes that his or her sexual inclinations are faced with the risks of genuine gambling in the future due to his or her sexual inclinations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Lee (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)