본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울행정법원 2020.04.01 2020구단51283

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.


1. The circumstances leading up to the decision of non-recognition of refugee status ① The Plaintiff entered the Republic of India on July 31, 2017 with the second-year visit (C-3) resident of the Republic of India, and applied for refugee status on September 28, 2017 for refugee status on the ground that “the family of the married wife demands and threatens consolation money to the Defendant.”

② On October 5, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The threat caused by consolation money for his family in the former wife cannot be deemed to be an imminent injury that constitutes a ground for refugee application, and this appears to be a case requiring protection and relief from damage to his judicial authority due to a threat by a private person, and the Plaintiff was not directly threatened after his/her assault was committed on April 4, 2017, and there was no direct threat and there was only verbal compromise by telephone until his/her departure from the Republic of Korea on July 31, 2017.”

③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on October 18, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was divorced at the request of the wife on March 2017, and at the request of the wife, in India, the wife’s family members, despite not having undermined the division of property, threatened the Plaintiff from time to time, and at April 4, 2017, two wife and 2-3 children of the wife and her natives, who were suffering from the Otoba, threaten the Plaintiff to block and block the Plaintiff, and even after that, the wife’s family members continued to threaten the division of property.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff became a refugee regardless of India, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

3. (i) Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Status of Refugees, 1967.