본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울행정법원 2018.03.09 2018구단50423

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. During the process of the disposition, the Plaintiff’s short-term visit of sojourn status (C-3) on December 28, 2016, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea of the People of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for refugee status recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on January 24, 2017, the date of the application for refugee status recognition (hereinafter “application for refugee status recognition”) was January 24, 2017: The fact that there is no dispute as to the rejection of the decision of the Supreme Court of Korea on March 11, 2017 as of the date of application for objection that there is no sufficient ground for recognizing refugee status non-recognition: the fact that there is no ground for recognizing the notification of the decision of the Supreme Court of Korea on March 24, 2017; the statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China").

In around 207, when receiving training in the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff first entered the patriarche who was the time of receiving training in the Republic of Korea, and completed the training and trained the patriarche who was returned to China.

On October 2013, the plaintiff was arrested in China as a matter of course on the grounds that he received training for the patriarch, and received education for daily edification.

As such, the Plaintiff is likely to be stuffed by the Chinese government on the ground that he/she provided training for a Korean-Japan, and thus, he/she should be recognized as a refugee.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines a refugee as “a foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion, or who, due to such fear, cannot return to, or does not want to return to, the country of nationality that had resided in the Republic of Korea before entering the Republic of Korea.” In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in Articles 3 and 5 and the evidence as stated above, the Plaintiff’s race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.