(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.11.21.선고 2014구합7916 판결

A. On January 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on February 17, 2012, as an alien of the nationality of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

B. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition for non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to gambling (see Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 5, 2013, but was dismissed on April 11, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 콩고민주공화국 내의 야당인 Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social ( 이하 ' UDPS ' 라 한다 ) 의 당원으로서 , 2011 . 11 . 28 . 실시된 대통령 선거에서 UDPS 총수이자 대통령 후보인 에티엔 치세케디를 지지하였다 . 원고는 2011 . 11 . 26 . 위 후보의 유세 활동을 방해하는 정부에 항의하는 시위 과정에서 한 차례 체포 ( 이하 ' 제1차 체포 ' 라 한다 ) 되었고 , 그 후에도 2011 . 12 . 9 . 체포 ( 이하 ' 제2차 체포 ' 라 한다 ) 당 해 고문을 당하고 정치적 활동을 하지 말라는 협박을 받았으며 , 2011 . 12 . 20 . 에도 체 포 ( 이하 ' 제3차 체포 ' 라 한다 ) 당해 금고 17년의 형을 선고받았다 . 원고는 다행히도 교도 소에서 탈출하여 박해를 피해 대한민국에 입국하였다 . 이와 같이 원고는 정치적 의견 을 이유로 콩고민주공화국에서 박해를 받을 가능성이 높은데도 피고는 원고를 난민으 로 인정하지 않았으므로 이 사건 처분은 위법하다 .

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(i)the national situation of the Democratic Republic of Congo;

A) The Democratic Republic of the Congo was the food of the Belgium in 1960, and was independent of the Belgium in 1960. At the time of independence from the Belgium, the Democratic Republic of the Congo " was independent of the name of the Republic of the Congo." In 1965, the name of the State was changed to "the Republic of the Ireland" in 1971, by causing the military coo in 1965.

B) However, the forces opposing tax-fluorcis are organized for Alance des Flucis pour Libso la dibso - Zire (hereinafter referred to as "AFDL") and set up against the government-military forces (the first inside part). As a result, the tax-fluorcis came to the departure from the Republic of Korea in 1997. The Rour Roc loan (Laur - Kabla Bla in the AFDL), a leader of AFDL, changed the name of the present country to the Democratic Republic of Habur in bad faith.

C) Even after the bad regime of Roran Rober Liber had led to anti-military activities based on the Robere Congo (hereinafter referred to as the "Robere") (hereinafter referred to as the "Robere") which is a anti-military organization consisting of the anti-military organization consisting of the Round of the Rounda (hereinafter referred to as the "Robere") and a anti-military organization supported by the multilateral government (hereinafter referred to as the "MLC").

D) On the 2001 when the second platform of the Rock Loans was continued, the Rock Loans succeeded to their status. Along with the UN’s support, the Rock CDs and MLC proposed flat negotiations on the RFC and the 2nd column. Accordingly, the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which was established, entered into force on February 2006, came into force on the following grounds: (a) the legislative division is composed of the upper part and the lower part, and (b) the 500 direct elected members, and (c) the Hacwon is composed of the members elected at the local council.

마 ) 콩고민주공화국에서는 2006 . 7 . 30 . 처음으로 복수의 정당이 참여하는 대 통령 선거가 실시되었으나 그 선거 결과를 둘러싸고 수도 킨샤사에서는 조세프 카빌라를 지지하는 세력과 위 MLC의 지도자인 장 피에르 벰바 ( Jean - Pierre Bemba ) 를 지지하는 세력 사이에 교전이 일어났다 . 이에 2006 . 10 . 경 새로운 선거가 실시되었고 , 그 결과 조세 프 카빌라가 2006 . 12 . 경 새로운 대통령으로 취임하였다 . 그러나 그 후에도 콩고민주공화 국의 일부 지역에서는 여전히 지역 반군단체의 활동이 계속되고 있다 . 콩고민주공화국은 2011 . 12 . 28 . 새로운 대통령 및 하원의원을 선출하기 위한 선거를 실시하였다 .

F) UDPS asserted that the Plaintiff was affiliated is a Party that continued from the time when the mother was dead to the end of the year when the mother was dead. UDPS declared that the UDPS did not participate in the election in 2006 but did not participate in the election in 2011, and it was difficult for ENPS as a candidate for the President.

G) On November 26, 201, 201, UDPS supporters engaged in a demonstration in the vicinity of the Kibya Airport of Libya, and the number of the Republics of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Garde Roine publicaine; hereinafter referred to as “GR”) 1) suffered casualties in the course of suppressing UDPS applicants, and the demonstration participants were arrested.

H) In the presidential election in 2011, the President of the Tax Credit, who was elected, but the former U.S. (the election monitoring body 2) argued that the above election did not have any reliance, and that the result was not reliable. 3) Ethient Satis declared that he was elected in spite of the above announcement of the election, and the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo made it in a de facto selective pension status by restricting access to the residence of Ethient Satis.

I) Since November 26, 2011, the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (UNFCCC Jindo Roff Office) died of more than 10 people due to the violence that occurred in the election at Shindo only after it was announced on November 26, 201, and they reported that they were killed by public security guards and political party support persons. The Human Rights Office, which is an international human rights monitoring body, issued a report on December 21, 201, at least 20 children’s security guards were arrested and detained for at least 15 years after the presidential election was announced on December 21, 201, and 200 persons were arrested and detained for at least 20 children’s security guards.

j) The Supreme Court of the Democratic Republic of the Congo rendered a judgment that the person is elected, but the National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of the Congo criticized the result of the above election and proposed a national non-contentious movement. The civic groups of the Democratic Republic of the Congo also asserted re-election. 6)

(ii)the judicial procedures and current status of the operation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

A) The laws of the Democratic Republic of the Congo stipulate the warrant requirement and guarantees the visitation rights of the persons arrested and detained. However, there is a super-legal detention facility operated by GR separately, and the persons detained in these facilities are detained without any suspicion. Security personnel are detained without suspicion by any person opposing or opposing the government, and during that process, they do not comply with the principle of due process. The same police is also committed. 7)

B) The Democratic Republic of the Congo has a legal independent judicial branch. However, in fact, it is not feasible, decomposed, and easily affected by the outside. The judicial branch’s independence is assessed as formally independent due to very poor support for the judiciary. The administration as well as the administration is involved in the judicial process, as well as in the security guards. 8)

C) The prison system of the Democratic Republic of the Congo does not have been maintained, and thus, does not have to be understood as the precise figure of the convicted prisoner. Accordingly, even after the period of punishment specified in the judgment has expired, the case where the convicted prisoner continues to be confined in a prison lawsuit, and the record as to who was dead in a prison is not sufficient. As such, as the management of the convicted prisoner in the prison is not proper, there are very frequent cases where the convicted prisoner escaped in the prison. Even if the convicted prisoner escape under the permission of the authority, there are cases where the convicted prisoner escaped in the prison. 9)

3) Facts as to the party members' certificate of UDPS

A) From December 2007, UDPS demanded its members to purchase a party member card or support card called UDPS first meeting card (UDPS). According to the above policies, UDPS member certificates issued in the past since 2008 were all invalidated.

B) The first meeting card of UDPS was issued in the form of two special cards and support cards. The first meeting support card is issued in the condition of 20 U.S. dollars for the Democratic Republic of Congo or for the party members abroad. The first meeting special support card is issued only for the party members located in the Democratic Republic of Congo and shall pay 2 U.S. dollars. The first meeting special support card holders are entitled to participate in the first meeting. The first meeting card holders are written as of December 31, 2008. On the other hand, UDPS was issued a new party member card in order to grasp the number of party members leading to the election in 2011 and to mobilize them.10)

C) UDPS calls for payment of US$ 1 for those in the Democratic Republic of Congo and 10 US$ 10 for those outside the Democratic Republic of Congo, among those who are not party members but are in support of UDPS, but who are outside the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, it is unclear whether a party member card is issued to them.

D) The Plaintiff presented a party member card to increase his/her membership in the course of the interview after applying for refugee status. The date of issuance of the above party member card is written on September 5, 201, and the expiration date is written on December 31, 2010. The Plaintiff presented a party member card that was newly issued by UDPS during the instant lawsuit. The date of issuance of the above party member card is written on December 22, 2011, and is valid until 2012. Both party members certificates are written by the Plaintiff in Tsangu guccccitation and Imballllll1).

4) Plaintiff’s statement

A) On February 17, 2012, an application for recognition of refugee status

(1) The Plaintiff was a member of the Youth Federation in UDPS’s Tshgu district.

(2) On November 26, 201, 201, the representative of UDPS, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “UDPS”), after completing local attention on November 26, 201, the President’s election day, and tried to land at a regional public port of Eina, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “UDPS”), but the Government of the Democratic Republic of Cina (including the Plaintiff) was prevented. Accordingly, the security team of the Democratic Republic of Cinan (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) started to resist the Plaintiff, and was arrested during the process of suppressing the Plaintiff, but could have been released by the intervention of the United Nations Peace and human rights organizations.

(3) On December 9, 2011, the presidential election result was announced, and the tax Kadi Internationale (hereinafter referred to as "RFI") was elected. However, the Rodi Internationale (hereinafter referred to as "RFI") issued a democratic presidential election, and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo issued an order of night traffic prohibition in order to prevent UDPS from doing any demonstration. While the Plaintiff was on the house, it was arrested at 4 pPS and was detained on 8 days after being placed on the new wall. The Plaintiff was warnedd on December 17, 2012, and was given a warning that it would no longer engage in political activities.

(4) On December 20, 201, the Plaintiff taken an oath of taking office on December 20, 201, which was arrested on the road, and was confined in Ma-kn central office, and was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for 17 years from a judge after this framework. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor for 17 years from a judge, and UDPS party members who were detained together with the Plaintiff were sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to 20 years.

(5) Among the number of prisons of the Plaintiff, those who are favorable to the meaning of UDPS were aware that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo would die in the order of UDPS members, and help some UDPS members derived from the Plaintiff to escape. As a result, the Plaintiff was successful in the sloping and could have entered the Republic of Korea.

(6) The Plaintiff was working for a mine company located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but came to enter the Republic of Korea as a business trip of the said mining company at the time of entry into the Republic of Korea.

B) A statement at the time of refugee interview enforced September 16, 2013

(1) The details of the Plaintiff’s accession to UDPS and the status within UDPS

(A) The Plaintiff joined as a shower Co., Ltd. in 2004. The Plaintiff was a representative of Tsho-gu Masina Corblie, but was classified as a general member.

(B) The Plaintiff was issued a party member certificate in 2004 and was issued a party member certificate twice thereafter. The second party member certificate was issued in 2008 and the party member certificate submitted at the time of refugee interview was newly issued around September 201. UDPS issued a new party member certificate in order to identify the number of party members before the presidential election in 201 and ascertain the number of party members.

(C) The Plaintiff paid USD 2 per month as the party membership fee of UDPS, and paid USD 1 at the time when the Plaintiff was issued the original certificate in 2011.

(2) The circumstances concerning the first arrest.

(A) On November 26, 2011, prior to the presidential election, EDPS’s representative, EDPS completed local attention and avoided the Government of EDPS Democratic Republic of Libya from the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “UDS”) to land at an international public port in Edician Republic of Korea. Accordingly, EDPS’s representative, including the Plaintiff, began to set a port, and multiple persons launch ball cartridges by a special military unit security guarding the President of Libya.

In the process, the plaintiff was arrested by the above special unit.

(B) The Plaintiff was led to a secret location, and became an adviser between this frame, and the United Nations Peace Branch and Human Rights Organization were unfolded into the ports of the United Nations Peace Branch and Human Rights Organization.

(3) The circumstances concerning the second arrest.

(A) On December 9, 2011, when the presidential election result was announced, the social tension was raised. The Plaintiff, at around 4:00 p.m. on the same day, engaged in an interview with a foreign reporter and a person who visited the representative of UDPS at the same time. At that time, the reporter was the reporter affiliated with the RFI. Accordingly, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo prevented from passage.

(B) On the following day, the Plaintiff was arrested at 4:4:00 Doz. from the new wall, and was detained for eight (8) days after being detained. They also worked for a special unit that escorts the Kaba president. The Plaintiff was able to know his position through the entry of the market price indicating the GR in the military uniforms that he suffered.

(C) Since the Plaintiff was glickly moving to the detention place, the Plaintiff was only aware of, where he was arrested. The Plaintiff was subject to adviser at the detention place, and was threatened that he would have died once again.

(D) Since eight days after the Plaintiff’s day, the Plaintiff was unsatisfed to the degree of self-determination. They sent the Plaintiff to a public site by burning the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was satisfed for two hours, and returned home.

(4) Circumstances concerning the third arrest.

(A) On December 20, 201, UDPS party members tried to conduct a demonstration that the president ought to change Ethye to Ethye, in line with the presidential appointment formula of Canadian President on December 20, 201. In order to participate in the demonstration, the Plaintiff sent Ethye to Ethye’s home located in Ethiene.

(B) The Plaintiff was trying to move a taxi or bus from a place less than 1 km away from the house to another place of demonstration. The Plaintiff was on board a taxi to move to the place of demonstration. The Plaintiff was already two passengers in the taxi to move to the place of demonstration. They were first on board the taxi, and they were arrested the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was on the e-mail and went to the Macar prison.

(C) The Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for a period of 17 years from the judge uniformed by Maknman prison. The Plaintiff was not subject to any investigation during the above trial process, and the Plaintiff was also unable to receive the judgment. The Plaintiff was able to see the judgment, but only the name and the amount of the Plaintiff’s punishment were written in the judgment, and the name of the offense and the reason were not indicated.

(D) There were 140 UDPS members in the same prison as the Plaintiff, and there were also 10 years or 20 years of punishment.

(5) Escape and entry into the Republic of Korea

(A) From among correctional officers, those who think that the Democratic Republic of the Congo should change were trying to escape from the original intent. The number of crimes including the Plaintiff, four including the Plaintiff, could escape from the vehicle prepared by a correctional officer on January 10, 2012. The Plaintiff was not able to escape from the workplace after escape as above, and did not return home.

(B) The Plaintiff was able to enter the Republic of Korea as a business trip name with the help of the company accompanying the company in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the time of the Plaintiff’s entry, two persons were first engaged in the Plaintiff, but all of them was the first people, and the Plaintiff was able to help the Plaintiff enter the Republic of Korea. At the time of his departure, the Plaintiff was able to use a diplomatic passage with the help of the company, and there was no special problem at the time of his departure.

(C) The plaintiff's wife has moved to another area within the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the adult families are safe because they have different political opinions from the plaintiff.

C) On December 5, 2013, 2013

(1) The Defendant did not recognize the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement on the ground that UDPS was invalidated in all of the party members certificates in 2008. However, at the time of refugee interviews, the Plaintiff did not have been asked. The Plaintiff is well aware of the circumstances regarding the invalidation of the party members certificates in 2008.

( 2 ) 피고는 이 사건 처분의 이유 중 하나로 원고의 탈출 경위 ( 교도관들이 정치적 신념에 따라 원고의 탈출을 도와주었다는 부분 ) 에 신빙성이 없다는 점을 들었다 . 원고는 난민면접 당시에 교도관들이 원고의 정치적 의견에 동조하여 원고를 탈출시켰다 고 생각하였다 . 그러나 최근에 검사인 원고의 장인어른 ( beau père ) 12 ) 이 교도관들을 매수 하여 원고가 탈출할 수 있게 되었다는 점을 알게 되었다 .

(3)The Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo still finds the Plaintiff’s whereabouts, and arrest the Plaintiff’s wife in its process.

D) October 29, 2014

In the examination of the parties, only the plaintiff's prior statements are not revealed or contradictory as a result of the examination of the parties.

(1) With respect to the reasons why the date of issuance of a party member certificate presented by the Plaintiff at the time of the refugee interview, the date on December 31, 2010, the date on which the Plaintiff applied for the party member certificate, which was recorded in the pertinent party member certificate, is the date on which the Plaintiff applied for the party member certificate. The Plaintiff was unable to find that there was no yellow situation in front of two elections at the time of issuance of the party member certificate on September 5, 201, because there was no yellow situation at the time of the Plaintiff’s issuance of the party member certificate.

(2) Regarding the circumstances at the time of the third arrest, passengers had already been on board the front seat and the rear seat at the time when the Plaintiff was on board the taxi, but the Plaintiff had been on board the Plaintiff’s right side while the Plaintiff was on Limeral. As the Plaintiff asked about the fare within the taxi, the driver could not get out of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff could not get out of the front seat of the Plaintiff’s left side.

(3) On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff, along with the club members, could escape from the test with the help of a correctional officer. Since the Plaintiff’s head, who is a former inspector, was able to escape, the Plaintiff was able to escape, and the Plaintiff became aware of the fact by contact with his wife.

(4) The Plaintiff’s escape from the prison was unfolded by the police, and was investigated about the whereabouts of the Plaintiff, and was hospitalized in the hospital between three and four days after being arrested on October 2013.

(5) The plaintiff's wife is currently in the South Africa Republic, and the plaintiff's wife's husband and wife live in the mother's house. However, the plaintiff's husband and wife have no contact with the plaintiff's wife.

(e) Other

(1) According to the confirmation in the name of Mavungu Putibruno, the Secretary General of UDPS, the Plaintiff was active in the mobilization of Tshgu and the Imbbbali Group in 1 area (gand mburur), as stated by the Plaintiff, a large number of UDPS members were arrested on November 26, 201 and December 9, 201, as stated by the Plaintiff, on December 23, 2011, and Ethien Cuba was arrested before and after the presidential consciousness. The above Secretary-General stated that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to recognize the Plaintiff as the refugee in light of the situation at which the Plaintiff is faced in the Republic of Korea.

(2) On the other hand, according to articles reported on February 2, 2014 by the UK, the Minister of the Interior Affairs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo circulated a document stating that the high-ranking officials of each public security organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including UDPS, are tracking the members of the major camping parties, including UDPS, and advising them at his/her own discretion. The above document orders the submission of refugee recognition applications from a foreign country, in particular, that the persons who returned to Korea are not recognized as having filed an application for refugee recognition and who returned to Korea.

[Grounds for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 16 (including each number number), the personal examination of the plaintiff, and the purport of the whole pleadings against the plaintiff

(d)boards;

1) A foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status under the Immigration Control Act must have a well-founded fear of persecution. In this case, a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status that there is a sufficient well-founded fear of persecution.

However, considering the special circumstances of the foreigner, the foreigner cannot be required to prove the whole alleged facts based on objective evidence, and if it is reasonable to recognize the alleged facts by being based on the credibility of the overall statement in light of the following: the course of entry, the period from entry, the period to the application for refugee after entry, the background of refugee application, the situation of the country of nationality, the degree of fear that the applicant feel subjectively, the political, social, and cultural environment of the region in which the applicant resides, the degree of fear that the ordinary merchants feel in the region, and the degree of fear that the applicant feel in the same situation, etc., there is proof (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3930 Decided July 24, 2008).

In addition, when evaluating the refugee applicant’s statement about his/her experience in gambling, it should not immediately deny the applicant’s overall credibility by deeming that there is a little discrepancy between the details of his/her statement and some exaggerations. The director of such inconsistency should also evaluate the overall consistency and credibility of the statement, focusing on the core contents of the statement, with sufficient consideration of the possibility that the director of the division may be caused by mental shock arising from his/her experience in his/her genuine gambling, or an unstable psychological state arising from his/her poor situation due to the refugee applicant’s experience, the limit of his/her memory according to time warning, the difference in language occurring from cultural and historical background different from the Republic of Korea and other cultural and historical background. In addition, if it is reasonably acceptable based on the above evaluation, there is sufficient ground for recognizing refugee status, unless there is any special circumstance to deem that the situation of the country’s origin was significantly changed and that there was a clear possibility that it might be imminently extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du4784, Apr. 26, 2012).

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the fact that the Plaintiff returned to the instant case, health class, and the recognition thereof, it is deemed that the Plaintiff, as a member of UDPS, has a well-founded fear of persecutioning on the grounds of political opinions.

A) The Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with only one month of entry into the Republic of Korea. If the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea for economic reasons, the Plaintiff continued to engage in job-seeking activities without exposing his/her identity to the head of the entry management office for job-seeking activities in the Republic of Korea. As seen above, the Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea for long time has not yet passed since he/she entered the Republic of Korea and applied for refugee status after a long period of time elapsed from entry into the Republic of Korea, there is a high room to view that there is a genuine nature of the application for

B) From the time of the application for refugee status on February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff made a relatively detailed and consistent statement on the date, place, circumstance, and date of release that he was arrested in the Democratic Republic of Congo from the time of the application for refugee status to the process of questioning the principal of the party in the instant lawsuit. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s testimony was consistent with the aforementioned circumstances, based on the circumstances that the Plaintiff’s testimony was consistent with the circumstances of the Republic of Korea, based on the following facts: (a) on November 26, 2011, at the Shari Airport of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the demonstration occurred; and (b) on arrest of some demonstration units, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the UDPS was dissatisfied with the outcome of the election; (c) on December 9, 2011, after the presidential announcement, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the UDPS was a pension candidate for his residence; and (d) on that basis, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the status of refugee status exceeded 200 is consistent.

C) Of course, among the contents of the Plaintiff’s statement, it is somewhat inconsistent with the following detailed contents.

A person shall be appointed.

First of all, with respect to the changes in the statement concerning the reasons why the Plaintiff became aware of the election objection declaration by the candidate of Ethnent President Ethic Republic, it is merely a scarcity information about the Plaintiff’s gambling facts, and thus, it is somewhat inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s statement as to whether the Plaintiff was heard through any medium. Thus, it cannot be said that the entire credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement on the process of gambling is lost.

Examining the changes in the statements related to the process of the third arrest, the Plaintiff: (a) on February 17, 2012, in the application form for recognition of refugee status, the following was specifically explained in the process of the third arrest of the Plaintiff on September 16, 2013: (b) the interview report of the Plaintiff on September 16, 2013, and the party himself/herself on October 29, 2014; and (c) examining the statements made on September 16, 2013 and on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was arrested by two other passengers in the name of the taxi driver and two other passengers on the road before the arrest; and (d) whether there was any disagreement between the Plaintiff and the first passenger on the ground that there was no inconsistency between the Plaintiff’s statement and the second passenger on the ground that it was false.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff made a statement entirely different from the time of the preparation of the written objection on December 5, 2013 with respect to the escape process and the whereabouts of his/her family members. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is merely a change in the Plaintiff’s statement on the ground that the Plaintiff obtained new information by contact with his/her family members who did not contact until now. It can be easily anticipated that the Plaintiff’s statement was likely to cause contact with his/her family members in cases where the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, has no choice but to leave the country of nationality of the Republic of Korea. In fact, according to the Plaintiff’s statement, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea 12 days after escape from the prison and was faced with an imminent situation from the escape of the prison to the entry of the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff’s statement on the particulars of escape from the prison and the whereabouts of his/her family members in the Republic of Korea could not be confirmed by fully considering the changes in the Plaintiff’s statement and its credibility in the entire Republic of Korea.

라 ) 피고가 원고의 진술의 신빙성을 부정하는 주요 근거 중 하나인 UDPS의 당원증에 관한 사정을 본다 . 우선 피고는 UDPS가 2008년경 그 이전의 당원증을 전부 무 효화하고 새로운 당원증을 교부한 것과 관련하여 , 원고가 이 점을 2013 . 9 . 16 . 난민면접 당시 진술하지 않아 원고가 UDPS 당원인지 믿을 수 없다고 한다 . 그러나 2013 . 9 . 16 . 자 난민면접 당시 원고는 UDPS가 2008년에 당원증을 바꿨다고 진술하였고 , 위 당원증이 어 떻게 바뀌었는지 아는 대로 진술하라는 질문에 대해 " 크기만 바뀌었습니다 . 지금은 접히 는 방식이고 그 전에는 한 장짜리였습니다 . " 라고 답하였다 .

In light of the Plaintiff’s response to the question that the Plaintiff received at the time of refugee interview (hereinafter “party member card change or what is needed?”), the Plaintiff asked is considered to have understood the above question as an inquiry as to how the party member’s certificate was changed, and it does not seem to have been given an inquiry as to how the party member certificate was changed. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not state how the Plaintiff changed the party member certificate and explain how UDPS invalidated the party member certificate in 2008, and did not conclude that the Plaintiff was aware of the relevant case for the nullification of UDPS member certificate.

Rather, as seen earlier, the UDPS party member certificate was changed twice in 2008 and 2011. The Plaintiff stated that he was issued a new party member certificate at the time of the refugee interview and that he was issued a new party member certificate at the same time. As such, the Plaintiff’s statement as to the party member certificate of UDPS is consistent with the actual circumstances.

On the other hand, the defendant is the video product of UDPS 9-2, and the plaintiff's party member card (Evidence No. 9-1) submitted by the plaintiff is different from that of UDPS 1, and the plaintiff is not a party member of UDPS 2. According to the video of Evidence No. 9-2, CONGRE 1, and PECRNSS 2. As seen above, UDPS is replaced with the first party member card in 2008. Since the defendant's testimony (Evidence No. 9-2) is different from that of CONGS 1, PRES 208, 100, 100, 200, 200, 100,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Of course, it is recognized that there are exceptional circumstances prior to the expiration date of the party membership card submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the refugee interview (on December 31, 2010). However, during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff submitted a revised UDPS membership card, and furthermore, submitted a written limit recognizing that the Plaintiff is a party member of UDPS under the name of the UDPS secretary general. Meanwhile, if the Plaintiff’s internal transfer was not completed for a long time as the Plaintiff’s domestic transfer was not properly done, it is reasonable to view that the above number of party members did not clearly have been completed if the Plaintiff forged the party membership card to receive the application for refugee status, and therefore, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to present the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to issue other materials to support UDPS and evidence that the Plaintiff is a party member under the name of UDPS member.

E) The Defendant asserts that even though the Plaintiff was merely a general party of UDPS and there is no possibility to pay attention, the Defendant cannot believe that the second arrest and the third arrest were sentenced to the 17-year sentence. Accordingly, according to the United Nations report, the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo at the time of the report, there is a suspicion that the Plaintiff, who was a general party, was detained voluntarily, because the Plaintiff had been arrested when there is a suspicion that the Plaintiff would support the party.

F) The Defendant asserts that the circumstance in which the Plaintiff was sentenced to a 17-year sentence (the name of the crime or the reasons for the judgment has not been stated, and that the judgment was rendered in the prison) is difficult to believe. However, as seen earlier, the independence of the judiciary of the Democratic Republic of Congo is in fact difficult to be deemed to exist, and that the overall legal system of the Republic of Congo has not been improved due to illegal confinement facilities operated by GR. The fact that the Plaintiff was sentenced to a 17-year sentence without explaining the name of the crime and reasons is deemed to be inconsistent with the common sense when considering the current Korean standard. However, it is difficult to deny the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement merely because the Plaintiff’s country of nationality, such as the Plaintiff, had no advanced judicial system like the Republic of Korea, in most cases of the applicants for refugee status, was punished on the basis of Korea.

This issue can also be applied to the defendant's point that the defendant points out the plaintiff's prison escape as unrealistic. In other words, as seen earlier, since the prison system in the Democratic Republic of Congo has not been maintained at all, it is not understood as the number difference of inmates, and the authorities' implied escape is frequently recognized. On the contrary, it is difficult to see that the defendant escape from prison under the defendant's implied consent of a correctional officer, such as the plaintiff, in the state of the Republic of Congo, with the help of a prosecutor who was a prosecutor in the past, in the past.

G) The defendant argued that the plaintiff was a member of the Seogu UDPS who was the member of the National Assembly because the plaintiff raised the number of members at the time of the refugee interview, and that 500 members of the National Assembly confirmed that 500 members of the National Assembly were the members of the National Assembly, and that the plaintiff was the member of the National Assembly who was assigned in the Tshgu area to which he belongs. Even if he was a member, he was a general member who was not actively engaged in the activities. As long as the plaintiff is a general member, he did not have the possibility of paying attention from the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

First of all, it is difficult to see whether the plaintiff could not engage in active political activities only with the contents written in the refugee interview protocol. As seen earlier, since the member of the Sene Democratic Republic of Korea was elected by each local council rather than the vote of the people, and the election in 2011 in which the plaintiff participated in the election of the President and the subordinate members was elected by the National Assembly, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was a general party member participating in the above election campaign, and the current legislative unit system of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been established only in accordance with the Constitution introduced in 2006 and may become somewhat a part of the general public. In light of these circumstances, the representative of the young father of the village, as the general party member of the plaintiff, did not change the number of the standing members.

Next, it is related to the fact that the Plaintiff stated in the refugee interview protocol that the Plaintiff expressed that the Plaintiff was in the shower. In conducting a refugee interview, there is difficulty in the communication of opinion due to interpretation, and since the interviewer must re-examine the contents through interpretation, it is inevitable to reduce accuracy compared to other statements or written statements. In fact, the above refugee interview protocol contains two names, but the Plaintiff stated only one person in the party principal inquiry procedure. Even in the process of the party principal inquiry, the Plaintiff’s population in the 60 million population of the Democratic Republic of Congo was 10,000,000 won, and the remainder was 10,000,000 won in the presidential political party, and there is sufficient room for the Plaintiff to regard that the Warman was in the process of making an interview as a member of the SPS meeting and that the Warman was not able to properly distinguish the Warman’s members from those of the Republic of Korea.

On the contrary, the Plaintiff made a consistent statement with respect to his political activities from the date of application for refugee status to the present date, and the Secretary-General of UDPS sent the Plaintiff a large-scale mobilization of UDPS (grand Moburur) to the effect that the Plaintiff was engaged in active activities. Accordingly, it is difficult to deny the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff actively engaged in political activity in the Democratic Republic of Congo with only the circumstances described in the refugee interview protocol, where the consistency and objective materials are stored and the accuracy of the statement is not sufficiently secured.

h) Meanwhile, even if the Plaintiff did not actively engage in political activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it is deemed that the Plaintiff still is likely to be stuffed for the Plaintiff. In other words, it is repeated that, after the annual announcement of the election in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2011, UDPS applicants were voluntarily detained, and that the said Gu was not in compliance with the standards for the possibility of paying attention. As seen earlier, insofar as the credibility of the Plaintiff’s statement that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was arrested by the Government of the Republic of the Congo, and that the Plaintiff was sentenced to a 17-year sentence under the arrest, regardless of how actively engaged in political activities within the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff was classified as a person who should be sentenced to a 17-year imprisonment without prison labor by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, regardless of how actively engaged in political activities, there was a dispute over the outcome of the election in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the year 2011.

3) As above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes a refugee under the Immigration Control Act in full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff applied for refugee status as the Plaintiff’s entry and departure; (b) the Plaintiff’s statement is consistent and its content consistent with the national situation of the Democratic Republic of Congo; (c) the human rights situation of the Democratic Republic of Congo continues to be inferior; (c) the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo led to the election in 2011; (b) the dispute over the legality of the election is still underway; and (c) there is no need to present objective data in the refugee status case; and (d) there is no difference in the details of the statement. Nevertheless, the Defendant determined otherwise, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judge Lee Sung-soo

Judgment Notarial decoration;

Judges Kim Tae-hee

Note tin

(i)a special unit for guarding the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

2) Carter International Elre International Elbsler v, the buyer’s UN Organis Resolution in DRC, Obs v.

The European Union is a European Union.

3) See UK’s cross-border Agency, Omeral General No., Mago, 2012, 3. 11.

4) Hauman Rrights Watch, 24 Ktiled Eldern Annoced, 22/12/12/2011

5) MNUSCO/UNFCCC/ UNOffics for the People's Republic of Korea, Joint Rouss Haint Rouss, United States Rouss

Members on Board Rome viols mitted by the Organization : Congole de and Security Form support.

KRC 26 Non-member 201, March 2012, paragrah 28, non-member 20

6) See UK’s cross-border Agency, Omeral General No., Mam2012, March 15, 2012.

7) See UK’s cross-border Agency, Congo, Counited Reform, 9 March 2012, 13.01

8) UK’s cross-border Agency, the Polymtic Republic of Korea, the Counited Reform, 9 March 2012, 12.01;

12. see. 10

9) UK’s cross-border Agency, the Polymtic Republic of Korea, the UNFCCC, the 9 March 2012, 14.10;

14. See. 21

10) Canada: IMO and Regeleard, Democra, Modem: Unitedship for membership.

Demmocy and Sociment (UDS), 100 Doards, 200 Doards, 100 Doz. 10 Dok cann't be held.

208 2008, 16 April 2012, COD104020, Internet address :

Htp: / www. re-fword.org/ 5075272. html [Acced 18 non-member 2014]

11) Shogu is divided into four parts, the water supply of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in which Masina is one of the four parts.

Tshangu administrative district, Imbali is one of the regions belonging to Masina.

12 ) 원문에는 beauf père로 기재되어 있고 , 번역본에는 ' 의붓아버지 ' 로 번역되어 있다 . 프랑스어로 의붓아버지 및 장인어른은 모

두 beau - père라고 표기된다 . 당사자본인신문과 원고의 준비서면에는 ' 장인어른 ' 이라고 하고 있으므로 , 번역문에도 불구하고

The main text of the judgment is to express that it is a 's so-called'.

Site of separate sheet

Relevant statutes

Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012)

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

3. The term "refugee" means a person to whom Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the "Refugee Convention") or Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees is applied.

Article 76-2 (Recognition of Refugees)

(1) If a foreigner in the Republic of Korea files an application for recognition of a refugee, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the Minister of Justice may recognize such foreigner as a refugee after undergoing examination procedures.

(3) Where the Minister of Justice recognizes a foreigner as a refugee pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall issue a refugee recognition certificate to the foreigner, and where he/she does not recognize the foreigner, he/she shall notify the foreigner of the reason in writing.

(4) Procedures for examining the recognition of refugees under paragraph (1) and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Convention on the Status of Refugees

Article 1 Definitions of "Refugee"

A.For the purposes of this Convention, the term "refugee" applies to:

(2) As a result of the case occurred before January 1, 1951, a person who is outside his country of nationality due to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, ethnicity, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and is unable to be protected by, or does not want to be protected by, that country of nationality; FH or a person who does not want to return to the country of residence, or return to the country of residence due to such fear, as a result of the case;

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees

Article 1. General Provisions

1.The Parties to this Protocol undertake to apply the provisions of Articles 2 through 34 of the Convention to refugees as defined below:

2.For the purposes of this Protocol, the term of refugee means, except with respect to the application of paragraph 3 of this Article, any person falling under the definitions of Article 1 of the Convention if the phrase " ... as a result of the incident occurred before January 1, 1951 and .. as a result of such a case" has been deleted, as provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Convention.

심급 사건

서울행정법원 2014.11.21.선고 2014구합7916

-서울고등법원 2015.8.20.선고 2014누72370

-대법원 2016.3.24.선고 2015두51316

-서울고등법원 2016.6.22.선고 2016누39742

참조조문

-대한민국헌법

-출입국관리법

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 7. 24. 선고 2007두3930 판결

-대법원 2012. 4. 26. 선고 2010두27448 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 2016.3.24.선고 2015두51316 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.6.22. 선고 2016누39742 판결

-서울행정법원 2014.11.21 2014구합7916

-서울행정법원 2018.04.19 2017구단34745

-서울행정법원 2018.09.12 2017구단76503