In a case where the foreigner Gap of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S.") was subject to a disposition of non-permission for entry into the Incheon Republic of Korea on the ground that the purpose of entry into the Incheon Republic of Korea is unclear, and a new disease was transferred to the waiting room for repatriation, and the application for refugee registration was defective and the head of the Incheon Airport Immigration Office decided not to return refugee status screening, the case holding that

In a case where: (a) a foreigner Party A of the Republic of Korea was subject to a disposition of non-permission for entry into the Incheon Republic of Korea on the ground that the purpose of entry into the Incheon Republic of Korea is unclear; (b) the applicant for refugee application was transferred to the waiting room for repatriation; and (c) the head of the Incheon Airport Immigration Office rendered a decision not to return refugee status status on the ground that the applicant falls under Article 5(1)3 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act, the case held that, in principle, the disposition is unlawful on the ground that: (a) the burden of proving the existence of the reason for non-return to refugee status examination as prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act exists in the relevant disposition; (b) as Party A did not have any inconsistency with the entry in the preparatory document with the legal representative using English language; and (c) it is difficult to conclude that Party A made a false statement on the ground that Party A did not intend to obtain refugee status status by concealing the fact by submitting false documents or solely seeking refugee status recognition on economic grounds.

Article 6(1) and (3) of the Refugee Act; Article 5(1)3 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Kang Han-kin et al., Counsel for plaintiff)

The head of Incheon Airport Immigration Office

March 24, 2016

1. On November 22, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-return to refugee status screening rendered against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff arrived at the Incheon National Port of Korea, which was an alien of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Germany.

B. On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status by asserting that he/she was suffering from threat of his/her religious gambling in the repatriation atmosphere, upon the Defendant’s refusal of entry into the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the purpose of entry is unclear.

C. On November 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to return to the Plaintiff the refugee status review (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The statement related to the change of religion alleged by the Plaintiff is not reliable, and there is a sufficiently-founded fear.” In entering the Republic of Korea, the Defendant applied for the refugee status review with the intent to escape compulsory repatriation after entering the refugee status guidance form, stating that the Plaintiff did not intend to apply for refugee status, and thereafter, applied for refugee status review with the intent to escape compulsory repatriation after becoming a person waiting for repatriation, thereby constituting a ground for decision not to return the refugee status review under Article 5(1)3 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry Eul-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the defendant does not correspond to cases where the application for refugee status is not clearly justified, the defendant's disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 6 of the Refugee Act provides for the procedure on the premise that a foreigner can apply for refugee status at the port of entry and departure when he/she undergoes an entry inspection at the port of entry and departure, and the Minister of Justice can decide whether to refer to refugee status screening by the Minister of Justice.

Accordingly, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act provides that where a person falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the person may not be referred to the refugee recognition examination, and that “where a person intends to obtain refugee status by concealing facts, such as submitting false documents,” subparagraph 3, and subparagraph 7 provides that “where an application for refugee status is clearly groundless, such as where a person intends to obtain refugee status solely for economic reasons,” under subparagraph 7.

According to the purport of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention which provides for the prohibition of compulsory repatriation of refugee status, the requirements of Article 5(1)3 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act should be strictly interpreted and applied. The legislative purpose of Article 6 of the Refugee Act is to provide, in principle, applicants at entry and departure ports with opportunities to undergo refugee status screening under Article 5 of the Refugee Act in order to enhance the protection of the human rights of refugees. Accordingly, each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act lists only exceptional reasons for non-return of refugee status screening, and even if it is based on specific facts or based on the judgment of the relevant disposition agency, if the applicant bears the burden of proof of non-return of refugee status screening, the legislative purport of the above Article 5(1)3 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act is to provide applicants at entry and departure ports with opportunities to undergo refugee status screening under Article 5 of the Refugee Act. Thus, the legislative purport of the Act is to ensure that each of the above legislative disposition agencies does not have legitimate opportunity to receive refugee status review.

In full view of the above facts and the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the application for refugee status corresponds to cases where the application for refugee status is clearly groundless, such as the Plaintiff’s submission of false documents, etc. or the Plaintiff’s solely seeking refugee status on economic grounds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretionary authority.

① The Defendant asserts that, at the time of refugee interview, the Plaintiff wanting to open a family as YY, and his father stated that he died in around 201, and that the Plaintiff’s statement was joined in the preparatory document as shot school, and that his father was threatened with murder. As such, the Plaintiff’s statement is not reliable. However, the language mainly used by the Plaintiff is French, and the Plaintiff’s attorney appears to have communicate with the Plaintiff in English. However, at the date of pleading, the Plaintiff’s attorney appears to have been unable to easily communicate between the Plaintiff’s legal representative and the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff’s opening a family as a result of confirmation by the Plaintiff at the date of pleading, would have been consistent with the entries in the preparatory document. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff made a false statement.

② The Defendant alleged that the application for refugee status is clearly groundless since the Plaintiff stated that he/she did not intend to apply for refugee status after becoming a person waiting for repatriation. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff mainly uses French language. The Plaintiff’s guidance for refugee status written by the Plaintiff is written in English, and the Plaintiff also made a statement that he/she did not properly understand and sign the guidance for refugee status written in English. Thus, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff stated that he/she did not intend to apply for refugee status in the guidance form for refugee status, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status is clearly groundless.

③ The Plaintiff consistently stated that it was desired to open a Islamic school from around 2010 to in 100. In light of the record, there was no obvious evidence to distinguish the motive of opening a new school in the process of recording, and even if he thought of opening a new school from around 2010 to the present, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not want opening a new school merely because he did not practice a new school.

④ Although the general agreement review report on foreigners states that the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea for the purpose of purchasing computers and Handphones, the said report contains questions as to the credibility of the statement because the Plaintiff stated that it is an English applicant, unlike actual ones, and such circumstance alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the application for refugee status is clearly groundless.

⑤ Around December 2012, 2012, the State of nationality of the Plaintiff, the State of the Republic of Korea, Muslim students conducted a demonstration at the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the Republic of Korea.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Dominsung (Presiding Judge)