logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.01.09 2019구단1534
난민불인정결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of India (hereinafter “ India”), entered the Republic of India (C-3 and the period of stay 30 days) into the Republic of India and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on February 19, 2018.

B. On December 26, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of 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, which is 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. On January 16, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 16, 2019, but was dismissed on July 30, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was from mentora, and the Plaintiff, along with his father, was a farmer on the land owned by his father in his/her home country. However, the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s around April 2015,

However, the Plaintiff’s relatives provided a bribe to the police, and threatened the Plaintiff to accept the Plaintiff’s report, and thus, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on March 15, 2017, and returned to the Republic of Korea on his/her home on his/her own. At that time, the Plaintiff’s relatives were forced to put the Plaintiff on his/her home and got out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which did not recognize it on a different premise, is unlawful even though there is sufficient concern that the plaintiff will be stuffed when he returns to India.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

(c)each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 of the judgment; and

arrow