logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.14 2018구단213
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 May 11, 2015, as a foreigner of the Republic of Kazkhstan (hereinafter referred to as “Kazkhstan”), who is a national of the Republic of Kazkhstan (hereinafter referred to as “Kakhstan”), with the status of stay B-1 (Visa exemption).

B. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant. On October 6, 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 that there is a risk of persecution” as stipulated in 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. On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Minister of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as the Plaintiff’s objection on July 18, 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 former husband of the Plaintiff’s assertion forced the Plaintiff to go to Islamic school members with Muslim, and was difficult to exercise violence.

In 2014, the Plaintiff was married to the Islamic Republic of Islam. Around 2015, the Plaintiff was divorced from the former husband, and if the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea, the former husband is still likely to be harmed by the former husband.

Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act provides that a person who is a member of a particular social group is unable to obtain the protection of his/her country of nationality due to well-founded fear that he/she may be disadvantaged on the ground of his/her race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion.

arrow