logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.05.09 2018구단121
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. The Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on September 21, 2017, as a national woman of the Republic of Liberia (hereinafter “Liberia”).

B. On November 9, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fears that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized as the requirement of refugee status.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was raped by C, a sporably political person in Liberia around 2008.

However, C threatened the Plaintiff to murder on the ground that the Plaintiff knew of the fact to the four people.

If the plaintiff returned to Liberia, it is clear that C will be stuffed for the same reason.

The plaintiff shall be recognized as a refugee.

B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines “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 a foreigner who is a stateless foreigner who, due to such fear, could not return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea.” According to the above legal provision, in order to be recognized as a refugee, he/she should first be deemed as gambling on the grounds that the applicant’s assertion of refugee status itself constitutes “human race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion” of the applicant.

However, the Plaintiff.

arrow