(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.10.23 2015구단10097

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.10.23 2015구단10097

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 October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay (B-2) as a national of the Republic of Romen (hereinafter “Romen”) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 14, 2013.

B. On September 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be prejudicial 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. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 30, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on September 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report on a mobile phone car number with the police who observed the murder site at the front of the house and fleded.

As a result of the police's inquiry into the police's vehicle, the driver's vehicle was the vehicle of "B" (hereinafter referred to as "change police officer"), which was a former police officer, he was driven by "C" by his children at the time, and the male who was killed was the son of "D" (hereinafter referred to as "balma shortage"), the son's child of "D" (hereinafter referred to as "E").

Then, the plaintiff was requested to summon the plaintiff as a witness in the criminal trial of the murder case, and the former police officer threatened the plaintiff with the death of the plaintiff when the plaintiff was present at the public trial, and the second head of the shortage threatened the plaintiff with kidnapping the female female of the plaintiff unless the plaintiff is present at the public trial.

The Plaintiff did not appear in the court, and the Plaintiff escaped from the above threat.

Therefore, in case the plaintiff returned to mentor, as witness of the murder case, is a witness in criminal trial.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2016.01.29 2015구단18473

-서울행정법원 2015.01.15 2014구합17197

-서울행정법원 2015.11.19 2015구단13867

-서울행정법원 2017.12.21 2017구단33803

-서울고등법원 2014.10.29 2012나98876