logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.09.25 2015구단8094
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 November 27, 2011, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter referred to as “Austria”), was staying in the Republic of Korea on a short-term comprehensive (C-3) sojourn status as a partner (F-3) sojourn status in the Republic of Korea on December 1, 2011, and was staying in the Republic of Korea upon obtaining permission for a change of sojourn status as a partner (F-3) sojourn status in the Republic of Korea, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 29, 2013 immediately before the expiration of the period of sojourn (F-3, 2013).

B. On December 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-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 would be subject to persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was a fluent flusium due to the influence of the adoptive parent, which was a flusent flusium business, and the plaintiff was living in the Mauran region located in the north of Boliria.

원고는 2011.경 한국 유학생으로서 나이지리아를 방문한 카메룬 국적의 B와 결혼하였고, 카메룬에 있는 시댁에서 몇 달 동안 지내게 되었다.

After that, the awareness that the adoptive parent was involved in the attack and returned to the house of the adoptive parent, which was already permitted to abolish the house of the adoptive parent. On June 15, 2011, the adoptive parent was aware that he died due to the attack of the Islamic armed forces.

The plaintiff, who is a reading school, entered the Republic of Korea where her husband stays in the fear that he/she may be injured by persecutions that he/she threatens his/her life from Boco, on the ground that he/she is a shot school.

Afterwards, there is a difference between husband's appearance and character in Korea.

arrow