logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.05.10 2018구단619
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. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on January 9, 2016 as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “Egypt”) of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “Egypt”).

B. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on April 28, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition on May 9, 2016, and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground on October 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion became aware that the Plaintiff was same-sexd when attending the Mandora University, while having experienced a sense of care for men at the time of his school.

In Egypt, the perception of same-sexs is not good, and the plaintiff's family members came to know that they are same-sexs and committed violence against the plaintiff. If the plaintiff comes to return to Egypt, it is likely to be threatened to life or physical freedom on the ground that the plaintiff is same-sexs.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not accept the plaintiff's application for refugee status should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, the Minister of Justice is race, religion, and religion.

arrow