Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Kim o-op, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Justice (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 2, 2011

1. The Defendant’s disposition of denial of refugee recognition against Plaintiff 4 on August 23, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. All remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between Plaintiff 4 and the Defendant is assessed against the remaining Plaintiffs and the Defendant, respectively.

Order Paragraph 1 and the defendant's disposition of denial of refugee status against plaintiff 1 and 3 on August 23, 2010 is revoked on September 29, 2010 as against plaintiff 2.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

1) The plaintiff 1 was a ship of the nationality of the People's Republic of China, and the plaintiff 1 entered the Republic of Korea on July 6, 2006 and applied for refugee recognition to the defendant on December 8, 2008.

2) Plaintiff 2 was a ship of the People’s Republic of China’s nationality. On August 2, 2006, Plaintiff 2 entered the Republic of Korea and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on August 3, 2009.

3) The plaintiff 3 was a ship of the nationality of the People's Republic of China, and on February 25, 2006, entered the Republic of Korea and applied for refugee recognition to the defendant on December 2, 2008.

4) Plaintiff 4 was a ship of the People’s Republic of China’s nationality. On October 6, 2007, Plaintiff 4 entered the Republic of Korea and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on November 13, 2008.

B. The defendant's refusal disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter "each disposition of this case").

On August 23, 2010, the Defendant rejected the recognition of refugee status on the ground that: (a) Plaintiff 1, 3, and 4 cannot be deemed as having “a sufficiently-founded fear that Plaintiff 2 would be subject to gambling” against Plaintiff 2 on September 29, 2010.

C. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Defendant, respectively, but dismissed each of them on November 30, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 5 and 6-1 to 4, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs are actively engaged in anti-China activities, such as providing information about the truth of the pressure of the Korean War residing in China, while entering the Republic of Korea and conducting training of the Chinese government-managed Korean War as a ship yard. However, the plaintiffs feel a well-founded fear of persecution due to the training of the Korean War and the above anti-China Party activities in the Republic of Korea when they return to China. Nevertheless, the defendant dismissed all of the plaintiffs' applications for refugee status, and thus each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition (the national situation in China related to Spagyeong-si);

(i)the content and the course of dissemination of the Rose of Sharon;

파룬궁(법륜공, Falun Gong) 혹은 파룬따파(법륜대법)란, 진(진)·선(선)·인(인)을 근본으로 하여 몸과 마음을 함께 수련하는 심신수련법으로서 리훙쯔(이홍지)가 1992. 5. 13. 중국 길림성 장춘시에서 최초로 전수하였다. 심성수련은 수련서인 전법륜(전법륜)을 계속하여 읽고 생활 속에서 진(진)·선(선)·인(인)을 체현하는 것이고, 신체수련은 5장 공법(불전천수법, 법륜장법, 관통양극법, 법륜주천법, 신통가지법)으로 구성된 간단한 연공동작을 계속 행하여 신체를 연마하는 것이다.

파룬궁은 이후 중국에서 수련생이 급속히 증가하였고, 리훙쯔가 1995년경부터 대만, 싱가포르, 호주, 미국, 독일, 스웨덴, 캐나다 등 세계 각지를 순회하면서 파룬궁을 전수함으로써 현재 세계 약 100여 개국에 전파되어 파룬궁 수련자의 수가 1억 명을 넘는 것으로 추산되고 있다.

2. The current status of gambling by the Chinese government;

The Chinese government has shown a relatively significant attitude on the first time, but the number of its members increased and organized, thereby suppressing them. Around July 1999, the Chinese government started to take a serious control over the first time through the "Notice on the Prohibition of Activities for the Disabled" of the Public Security Department, which stipulates that the organization of the deceased is a private school, an illegal organization, and the publication of publications related to the Rose of Sharon and the prohibition of the publication of publications dealing with the Rose of Sharon during the discharge of China and the seizure of such publications.In regard to the problem of the path, the Chinese government is strictly punished in accordance with the relevant laws for the organization, conductor, and a person who plays a major role in the organization, conductor, and a person who has committed the crime.

However, according to the UN Human Rights Report, the United States and European Parliament, the UN Council on Refugee high-ranking Office, the UN Special Investigation Committee on Human Rights Attorneys-at-Law's Status, HRF, and the International MNA, etc., a report published by the International Government on the situation of human rights attorneys-at-law, it is difficult to see that a person who conducts private and prudent settlement in China has a substantial risk of persecution from Chinese authorities, barring special circumstances. However, there is a possibility that human rights may be violated, and in particular, a person who recommends or notifies that he/she has become a member of the organization dealing with the Pakistan, such as printing or distributing the materials related to the Pakistan, etc., has been severely punished, there is still a view that a person who still has been placed in China, such as surveillance, systematic suppression, advisory advice, etc., about the organization and labor of the organization through administrative dispositions such as labor, etc. by the culture authorities, etc. in China, taking into account the situation where the person has been punished.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7, 21 through 29, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(i) the requirements and burden of proof of refugee;

In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 2-2 and Article 76-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee Convention”), and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Minister of Justice shall recognize any foreigner in the Republic of Korea who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected in the country of his/her nationality due to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion, as a refugee prescribed by the Refugee Convention, upon request

At this time, “persecution” which is a requirement for refugee status can be deemed as “an act causing serious infringement of or discrimination against essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom.” The foreigner applying for refugee status shall prove the existence of “a sufficient-founded fear.” However, considering the special circumstances of the refugee status, it shall be proven that the statement is consistent and persuasive, and it is reasonable to recognize the allegation based on the credibility of the overall statement when it is reasonable to recognize the allegation based on the credibility of the overall statement in light of the following: the route of entry, the period from entry to the refugee application, the background of the application for refugee status, the situation of the country of nationality, the degree of fear of subjective fear, the political, social, cultural environment of the region in which the applicant resides, and the degree of fear that ordinary people in the region feel in the same situation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du19539, Jul. 24, 2008; 207Du3930, Jul. 24, 2008).

In addition, the Refugee Convention requires that the cause of gambling be related to a certain social and political status, and stipulates five kinds of “human race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion” as a social and political status that is the cause of gambling. This indicates that a person who, owing to the social and political status in which a refugee is located, is considered as a person from a member who is in fact in the liquor position of the country of nationality and that the protection of the country of nationality is subject to the supplementary protection of the international community. As such, the relationship with the above gambling that is the requirement for recognition of refugee status is recognized where the applicant is a discrimination based on the social and political status of the applicant.

(ii) Criteria for recognition of refugee status for trainees in patriarche;

In light of the situation of gambling in the Korean War and the opinions thereon, it can be deemed that the Chinese government has provided education and relief to the persons who committed the crime, the organization, the conductor and the persons who play a major role in the field of the crime. Thus, the fact that the person is taking training in the Korean War or is a member of the organization dealing with the Korean War cannot be considered as being organized by the Chinese government. In addition, if a public and active act such as illegal assembly and demonstration activities, disturbance at a public place or a religious activity, publication of a publication of the Korean War, etc. was committed in a public and active manner in China, it is likely that the Chinese government will be subject to harsh advisory if arrested and detained. In such a case, in general, the Chinese government will issue a passport that enables the Chinese government to depart from Korea through a normal channel, or in relation to the training in a foreign country or the training in the Korean War, its personal information and activities can not be grasped by the Chinese government, and thus, it may not be considered that the Chinese government has led the Chinese government to play an important role in the training abroad.

Therefore, to be recognized as a refugee, a trainee of the Pakistan is a person who has entered the Republic of Korea due to his or her activities such as arrest or detention during the activities related to the Pakistan subject to punishment in China, and who still has a well-founded fear of persecution from the Chinese government in the event that he or she returns to China. ② A person who has a well-founded fear of persecution from the Chinese government in the event that he or she returns to China is able to pay attention due to his or her active and leading activities in the Republic of Korea while staying in the Republic of Korea. In particular, in the case of a trainee of the Pakistan who intends to be recognized as a refugee during his or her stay in China, he or she is deemed to have not been aware or paid attention to the general details of the activities and personal information of the person who has been engaged in activities related to the Rose in a foreign country, barring any special circumstance, and thus, has to be justified to the extent that it plays a key and central role in the organization and activities related to the Rose, leading and fear of the Chinese government.

3) Determination on the possibility of gambling the plaintiffs

A) Plaintiff 1

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, evidence Nos. 36, evidence Nos. 37-1 through 7, evidence Nos. 37-1 through 3-1, evidence Nos. 3-1 and evidence Nos. 3-1, and witness testimony of the Non-Party, Plaintiff 1 cannot be deemed as a person who entered the Republic of Korea due to active strike-related activities in China. Moreover, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff 1 constitutes a person who has a well-founded fear of being affected by the Chinese government’s special attention due to activities related to the Rose of Sharon while staying in the Republic of Korea.

The plaintiff 1 did not engage in open and active activities such as illegal assembly or demonstration activities related to the Korean War in China, disturbance at a public place, publication of publicity materials of the Korean War, or arrest or detention therefrom. The plaintiff 1 was merely limited to general trainees of the Korean War who merely read and train books related to the Korean War.

○○ Plaintiff 1 entered the Republic of Korea by obtaining a passport in his name and having entered the Republic of Korea normally.

The plaintiff 1 remitted the amount of KRW 1 million to his wife residing in China once in a few months, and the wife in China has not been under the pressure of the Chinese government on the ground that the plaintiff 1 conducts the training of his pacifies.

○ It is recognized that Plaintiff 1 participated in various meetings and events of the Counter-China Communist Party and distributed leaflets as a member of the it entered and dealt with the Republic of Korea. However, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff 1 performed the leading and core role in the activities of the Anti-China Communist Party within the Republic of Korea in light of the actual activities.

B) Plaintiff 2

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, evidence Nos. 38, evidence Nos. 39-1 through 12, evidence Nos. 39-2, evidence Nos. 3-2, and evidence Nos. 3-2, and witness testimony of the non-party, Plaintiff 2 cannot be deemed as a person who entered the Republic of Korea due to active strike-related activities in China. Moreover, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff 2 constitutes a person who has a well-founded fear of being affected by the Chinese government’s special attention due to activities related to the Rose of Sharon while staying in the Republic of Korea.

○○ Plaintiff 2 did not engage in open and active activities such as illegal assembly or demonstration activities related to the Pakistan in China, disturbance at a public place, publication of publicity materials of the Pakistan, etc., nor arrested or detained thereby, Plaintiff 2 did not want to engage in any such activities. The former wheels lent by South and North Korean defectors in around 1996 was in contact with the once he was in contact with the once he was in contact with him through his book. However, since 1999, Plaintiff 2 was merely a general trainee of the North Korean War who was in contact with him, such as conducting training at his her her marry house.

○○ Plaintiff 2 entered the Republic of Korea by obtaining a passport in his name and having entered the Republic of Korea normally.

Plaintiff 2 stated that Plaintiff 2 entered the Republic of Korea for the purpose of working without economic leave when investigating and investigating an interview. After entering the Republic of Korea, Plaintiff 2 transferred to the family members of China the amount of 2/3 of monthly salary while engaging in continuous economic activities, and only the time when it is impossible to extend the legitimate status of stay, Plaintiff 2 applied for refugee status.

Although the fact that Plaintiff 2 participated in various meetings and events of the Anti-China Party, including Plaintiff 2’s entry into the Republic of Korea and participation in the activities of the Anti-China Party, it is difficult to deem that such activities alone carried out the leading and core role in performing the activities of the Anti-China Party Party, which resisted the pressure of the Rose of Sharon in the Republic of Korea.

C) Plaintiff 3

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, evidence Nos. 40, 41, evidence No. 42-1 through 8, evidence No. 42-3, and evidence No. 3-3, and witness testimony of the non-party, Plaintiff 3 cannot be deemed as a person who entered the Republic of Korea due to active strike-related activities in China, and it is difficult to view that Plaintiff 3 constitutes a person who has a well-founded fear of being affected by the Chinese government’s special attention due to activities related to the Rose of Sharon while staying in the Republic of Korea.

The plaintiff 3 did not engage in open and active activities, such as illegal assembly or demonstration activities related to the Pakistan in China, disturbance at a public place, publication of publicity materials of the Rose of Sharon, etc., nor arrested or detained thereby. Since 198, the plaintiff 3 was merely a general trainee of the Rose of Sharon, such as reading or training of books related to the Rose of Sharon in his house, mainly after coming from the outer third village in 198.

Since the plaintiff 3's training activities were conducted within the Republic of Korea, there was no carbon pressure from the Chinese government (the plaintiff 3 stated that her husband was working as a teacher in the past (hereinafter omitted) at the time of interview and investigation (the plaintiff 3 stated that her husband was working as a teacher in the past).

○○ Plaintiff 3, upon obtaining a passport issued in his name, entered the Republic of Korea normally, and entered the Republic of Korea on February 4, 2007, and re-entry the Republic of Korea on February 28, 2007.

○ Plaintiff 3 entered the Republic of Korea and solicited China to resign from the Chinese Communist Party at the second head of Incheon City, or distributed leaflets, etc., and was present at the meeting and event of the Anti-China Communist Party, but it is difficult to deem that Plaintiff 3 did not play a leading and core role in the activities of the Anti-China Communist Party in light of the actual activities.

D) Plaintiff 4

In full view of the following circumstances, Plaintiff 4 cannot be deemed to constitute a person who enters the Republic of Korea as a result of an active and leading activity in the Korean War, but it seems that Plaintiff 4 was sufficiently aware of the Chinese government’s attention by performing an active, leading and central role in the activities related to the Korean War while staying in the Republic of Korea. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff 4 has a well-founded fear that Plaintiff 4 would suffer from persecution, since Plaintiff 4 would be subject to gambling.

○○ Plaintiff 4 did not engage in open and active activities, such as illegal assembly or demonstration activities related to the Pakistan in China, disturbance at a public place, publication of publicity materials of the Pakistan, etc., nor arrested or detained thereby. On November 197, Plaintiff 4 was merely a general trainee of the Rose of Sharon who met with the above Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

After entry into the Republic of Korea, Plaintiff 4 started training for the Korean War in the Blue Park, etc., and distributed the fact-finding data on the current status of gambling in the Chinese War to Chinese people at the second head of Incheon. In addition, Plaintiff 4 was engaged in activities for the Anti-China Communist Party.

○ Plaintiff 4 was reported as a person responsible for communication in connection with various outdoor assemblies held near the Posular Island from December 5, 2009 to December 19, 2009, as the promotion of the Human Rights Council for Human Rights and Refugees in the Republic of Korea. At the time of the relevant outdoor assembly, Plaintiff 4 was engaged in central activities as the order keeper or the person responsible for liaison at the time of the relevant outdoor assembly.

On April 24, 2009, Plaintiff 4 participated in the meeting of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of Peace held before the Embassy of China. On July 4, 2009, Plaintiff 4 participated in the meeting of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Korean War, and actively participated in the activities and signature campaigns related to the Council of the Council of the Korean War held in Seoul or Incheon.

On November 24, 2009, Plaintiff 4 continuously conducted one person demonstration in front of the Blue House and the Embassy of China, etc. in front of the Blue House and the Embassy of China.

Although the above activities of Plaintiff 4 were mainly conducted after the application for refugee status was made, it appears that Plaintiff 4 performed a leading role in holding an outdoor assembly related to Pakistan, and that Plaintiff 4 continued to hold a single-person demonstration in front of the Blue House or the Embassy of China, etc., while actively engaged in the events related to Pakistan held in Seoul or Incheon.

4) Therefore, the part against Plaintiff 4 among the Defendant’s dispositions of this case is unlawful, and all of the remainder of the Plaintiffs are legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 4's claim is reasonable, and it is dismissed as the remaining plaintiffs' claims are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judge Oi- (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jae-in