2012Guhap32581 Revocation of Disposition of Denial of Refugee Status

b. Sha○○○ (Saz. 21 April 1986)

Seoul Guro-gu

Law Firm branch rate (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Head of Seoul Immigration Office

Litigation Performers Kim ○, Yellow ○○

April 4, 2013

April 25, 2013

1. On November 8, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of non-recognition of refugee status against the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea for short-term (C-2,90 days) sojourn status on short-term (C-2,90 days), and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on April 8, 2011.

B. On November 8, 2011, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is sufficiently based on the following: (a) Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”).

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.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s instant disposition is in danger of persecution if it returned to the Republic of Korea, and is unlawful on a different premise.

(1) The plaintiff is a same-sex child.

(2) The government of the Republic of Korea is punishing and suppressing the same-sexs under the law. (3) The Plaintiff’s village residents (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s village”), two months prior to entering the Republic of Korea, sent the Plaintiff’s “the Plaintiff’s warning was given to the same-sexs village,” and on February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff’s mother and female her mother were killed.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 3 and Article 76-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Declaration, an administrative agency should 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 "gambling", which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status, can be said to be "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 a foreigner applying for recognition of refugee status has sufficient fears. However, considering the special circumstances of the refugee, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff's assertion is unlawful based on the overall credibility of the plaintiff's statement in light of the following reasons: (i) the route and persuasiveness of the statement; (ii) the period from entry into the country after entry into the country; (iii) the period from entry into the country; (iv) the applicant's subjective fears; (v) the political, social, and cultural environment of the region in which the applicant resides; and (v) the degree of fear that the applicant's ordinary people feel in the region, and (v) the plaintiff's statement that he/she was unable to return from the residents of the region, and (v) the plaintiff's statement that he/she was not aware of the same-sex situation.

As to the fact that the plaintiff is the same-sex, that the village residents warn the plaintiff's mother to produce the plaintiff to the village on the grounds that the plaintiff's mother is the same-sex, and that the village residents' warning to the situation that the plaintiff's mother and the mother of the plaintiff died after two months from the time of the residents' warning.

10. On November 13, 2012, the refugee interview took place and on April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff made a consistent statement at the Plaintiff’s newspaper (the date of departure from the Republic of Korea in fact at the above refugee interview was February 21, 2011). In addition, in relation to questions asked for departure days, “after the Plaintiff made a statement under good knowledge or on February 22, 2011, it cannot be said that it is not consistent with the Plaintiff’s corrected statement on February 21, 2011.” In addition, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City-affiliated Hospital diagnosed that the Plaintiff’s 's eromatic stress response without any mental symptoms was very likely to cause severe stress, and that the Plaintiff’s eromatic stress response to the Plaintiff’s eromatic disorder, such as eromatic disorder, was consistently diagnosed to the effect that the Plaintiff’s eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic eromatic eur had no subjective symptoms.

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

1) On the basis of the Criminal Code, 000, 10 U.K. judicial police officers had no specific provision for sexual intercourses and 10 U.K. judicial police officers' actions against same-sexs on September 25, 209, 2000 and 10 U.K. judicial police officers' 0 U.K. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 10 U.K. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 2 U.K. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 0 U.K. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 2 U.K. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 0 G. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 10 G. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 10 G. judicial police officers' actions against the same-sexs and 20G police officers' actions against the same-sexs.

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 movement. In the case of HJ (HJ) case, the Supreme Court pointed out that internal movement is not an answer if it is against the person to conceal their sexual orientations with the fear of gambling in a new region, if it is against the person. (3. 8. 108. 108. 10)

C) Individual cases must be examined according to their own truth. The person in charge should recognize the applicant as refugee inasmuch as the applicant is considered as a member of a particular social group in U.K. in U.K. when concluding that he/she is faced with the risks of genuine gambling in U.K. due to his/her sexual inclination. (3. 1. August 11, 1999)

3. Conclusion

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

Judge transferred to the presiding judge;

Judge Lee Gyeong-hoon

Judges' branch office counter

A person shall be appointed.