logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.08.28 2018구단66930
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 April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) status on April 6, 2016, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on April 25, 2016.

B. On May 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” 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. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on June 15, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on June 12, 2018.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she operated and she was able to receive clothes in the Doez area of Doena or Dong. On February 2014, 2014, Russia invadeds the Plaintiff’s clothes and money, stolen the Plaintiff’s clothes and money, kidnapped the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was sexually detained for three months, and was released on June 12, 2014.

Since then, the Plaintiff stated the situation of the above hijacking in Macra or military forces, and the Russia, who became aware of this, Macia calls again from May 2015 to the Plaintiff, and find the Plaintiff’s whereabouts.

In the event that the plaintiff returns to his country of nationality, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though it is likely that the plaintiff might murder Maternia again.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, determination of race, religion, nationality, and specific social group.

arrow