logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.21 2017구단73450
난민불인정결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On December 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status as a Chinese national foreigner, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on December 8, 2016.

On January 31, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 6, 2017, but the said objection was dismissed on July 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including family number Nos. 1 and 2), the whole purport of the pleading, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the Chinese government has a pressure without permitting the plaintiff's response.

Around May 2010, the Plaintiff had been arrested in the factory on the ground that he had been arrested in the factory on November 2011 on the ground that he had been employed in the factory, and that he had been arrested in the factory on the ground that he had been employed in the factory.

Accordingly, the plaintiff did not engage in the training of the pathm that he was arrested and will be able to stay in the factory. On December 7, 2016, the plaintiff started the training of the path class after entering Korea on December 7, 2016.

For this reason, the plaintiff's return to his country is highly likely to be harmful to gambling.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

Judgment

In full view of the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 and Article 18 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, a foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want the protection of his country of nationality due to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

arrow