logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.12.04 2014구합14457
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 December 29, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Skistan”), and the status of employment for training (E-8) was amended by Presidential Decree No. 20076, Jun. 1, 2007; the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Act was amended to Presidential Decree No. 20076, Jun. 1, 2007;

On February 6, 2012, when the status of stay was changed to the status of non-professional employment (E-9), the Defendant applied for refugee recognition on February 6, 2012, when the period of stay expires three days.

(hereinafter “instant refugee application”). B.

On November 25, 2013, the defendant rejected the refugee application of this case on the ground that the plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the plaintiff would suffer persecution" as 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.

(See Evidence No. 1-1, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

On January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the instant disposition to the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed it on June 27, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the case where the Plaintiff’s spawala village (hereinafter “instant village”) is the case where the spawala village (hereinafter “instant village”).

The Plaintiff leased the land donated by his father B (hereinafter “instant land”) around February 2009 to C and D, a resident of the instant village.

From December 25, 2010 to February 25, 2011, the Plaintiff visited Pakistan. During that period, C and D came to know that the ownership of the pertinent land was transferred to them by forging documents regarding the instant land.

arrow