logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.12.15 2017구단74972
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 July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term visit on July 7, 2016, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on July 19, 2016.

B. On February 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under 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 March 13, 2017, but the said objection was dismissed on October 11, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s assertion was the president of a high-speed village, and died in around 2013. On December 2014, 2014, the high-speed village center demanded the Plaintiff’s punishment, who was the head, to succeed to the president position. On April 2015, the Plaintiff’s punishment was killed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s punishment was refused, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s mother demanded the Plaintiff’s mother to succeed to the position of the president on December 2015.

On February 2016, the plaintiff's mother visited annoyed village through annoyed manner, and the village street in which the plaintiff's mother was found. The plaintiff's mother escaped as the plaintiff's mother's escape, but the plaintiff's mother was killed by the village street in which the plaintiff's mother was born.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite high possibility that the plaintiff would be subject to gambling when he returns to the country of nationality is illegal.

B. “Refugee 1” refers to the protection of a country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that a person is likely to be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion.

arrow