(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.16 2018구단22022

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 2019.01.16 2018구단22022

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. On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with tourism and Tong (B-2) sojourn status on August 9, 2017, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on August 21, 2017.

B. On August 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” as 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.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 13, 2017, but was dismissed on June 12, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was granted a loan from the Egypt’s bank to operate the business, but the Plaintiff was unable to repay the loan due to a traffic accident caused by the Plaintiff, and the bank that provided a loan to the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment that the Plaintiff would be detained if the Plaintiff was unable to repay the loan by July 29, 2017. The Plaintiff still failed to repay the loan to the said bank.

In addition, the victim died due to the traffic accident caused by the plaintiff's partner, and the surviving families of the victim are threatening to kill the plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on a different premise is unlawful, inasmuch as there exists a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to gambling as above in the event it returns home with the Egypt.

B. Determination 1 “Refugees” may be understood as persecutions on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group or political opinion.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2018.07.20 2018구단6365

-서울행정법원 2018.10.10 2018구단10630

-서울행정법원 2017.07.20 2017구단15362

-부산지방법원 2017.08.10 2017구합1019

-서울행정법원 2018.03.23 2017구단37775