2015Du51316. Revocation of a decision to deny refugee status;

A

Head of Seoul Immigration Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu72370 Decided August 20, 2015

March 24, 2016

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (1) the Plaintiff’s history and political situation of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Plaintiff’s country of nationality; (2) the Plaintiff’s major activities within the Democratic Republic of Congo (hereinafter “UDPS”); (3) the process of issuing party membership cards; (2) the process of issuing the Republic of Korea’s judicial procedure; and (3) the Plaintiff’s request for the testimony of the Republic of Korea on December 22, 2011, which was consistent with the first instance court’s reasoning; and (4) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to consistently arrest the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s request for the testimony was inconsistent with the first instance court’s 20th anniversary of the date of issuance; and (1) the Plaintiff’s submission of the first instance court’s written confirmation (Evidence No. 6-2, 3) and e-mail (Evidence No. 8-1, 2011).

2. However, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted by the lower court and the first instance court.

A. The report, etc. of the Canadian Immigration State of Canadian, states that many administrative and legal documents, such as birth certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates, and bank account statements, are forged in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that such documents are confidential due to the existence of a criminal network.

B. During the refugee interview investigation conducted on September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff stated that UDPS party members were issued three times in total, and then submitted the party members' identification card (No. 9-1; hereinafter referred to as "party members' identification card") issued on September 5, 201. The above party members' identification card issued on September 5, 201 were issued on September 5, 201 and were issued on September 12, 201 and 31. Furthermore, the validity period is the same as UDS party identification card issued on the back of the year 2005, but the 315 UD's identification card purchased on the back of the 2007 U.S. 205's identification card purchased on September 201.

C. On October 29, 2014, the date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that it was a newly issued party member certificate from UDPS after being issued a party member certificate on September 5, 201, and submitted the above other party member certificate (hereinafter referred to as “party member certificate of December 22, 201”) as evidence. The date of issuing the above party member certificate is December 22, 201, and the term of validity is printed in 2012. The Plaintiff was issued three party members certificate from UDS in the course of the refugee interview investigation, and it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff submitted the above 10-party member certificate to be issued on September 5, 201 as a 3rd party member certificate, without being issued a new 10-party member certificate to be issued on September 21, 201.

D. Furthermore, around December 22, 201, the date of issuance of a party member certificate submitted by the Plaintiff immediately before the closing of the argument in the first instance trial, even if following the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was in the process of undergoing a trial at the time to Malar prison. However, UDPS party member certificate is not automatically issued or renewed at the expiration of the term of validity, but is found in the district or cell system of each applicant and filed an application for completing the form of personal information. Therefore, it is doubtful as to how to issue a party member certificate submitted later by the Plaintiff.

E. In addition, while the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation and e-mail under the name of the Director General of UDPS and as evidence during the instant lawsuit, the address of the addressee of the e-mail sent to the above Director General by the Plaintiff’s agent is different from the address of the sender of the e-mail that the above sender sent to the Plaintiff’s agent, as well as it is not confirmed whether the e-mail address

3. In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff’s party membership card and written confirmation, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff appears to have been prepared in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is no way to verify the identity of the Plaintiff, and there is no way to verify the authenticity of the content, and some materials were prepared after the application for refugee status of this case, and thus, there is sufficient possibility that the Plaintiff would be prepared with the content corresponding to the Plaintiff’s interest. The Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for 17 years after being arrested by the judge who was in the prison, and was sentenced to a separate judgment, and the Plaintiff’s statement that the judge was aware of the decision was not given and that it was difficult for him to understand it in the ordinary judicial system. This is also true when considering the special situation of the Plaintiff, which was the applicant for refugee status, the Plaintiff should have to be careful to recognize the authenticity of the document submitted by the Plaintiff or believe

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff constitutes a refugee without sufficiently examining whether the Plaintiff was able to recognize the authenticity of documents submitted by the Plaintiff or believe the content thereof as it is, whether the Plaintiff was able to recognize the role and status that the Plaintiff performed within UDPS, and whether there is a possibility of imminent harm as alleged by the Plaintiff. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of refugee status, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Park Byung-hee

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han