logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.08.14 2019구단9378
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 January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status as a foreigner with Mongolian nationality, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on July 6, 2017.

B. On October 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff 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 Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 19, 2018, respectively, but was dismissed on April 10, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the grounds for applying for refugee status do not specifically appear in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is written in the complaint to the effect that the application for refugee status is filed on the same grounds as the Plaintiff alleged in the procedures for refugee status screening, the Plaintiff’s assertion was arranged based on the Plaintiff’s statement at the time of the Plaintiff’

The plaintiff's wife was made harassment from any person in Mongolia, and the plaintiff's wife escaped to the Republic of Korea, and the plaintiff's wife demanded the plaintiff to find out the plaintiff, and threatened the plaintiff. On October 2016, the plaintiff and his/her body fighting have occurred between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on a different premise is unlawful, inasmuch as there exists a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to gambling as above in case of returning home to Mongolia.

B. 1 The term “refugee” means sufficient grounds for recognizing that a person is likely to be disadvantaged on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group or political opinion.

arrow