logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.23 2015구단15276
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 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) visa on October 9, 2013, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on October 24, 2013.

B. On September 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the said objection was dismissed on July 1, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff resided in Ego, Aba, Aba, Abba, 201, Madu-gu, 2011. On December 201, 201, 201, 1,000 U.S. employees of Bodu-gu were sought as the Plaintiff’s store located in Bodu-gu, and 1,000 U.S. dollars were arrested on June 201, and the Plaintiff refused this, demanded 8 million U.S. dollars for the Plaintiff’s father’s release.

Since then, the plaintiff escape from the Republic of Korea and remains in the Republic of Korea.

After the visit to the Rambra, the Republic of Korea returned to the Nwimbra New (Nwi). On October 2, 2013, Bombra's officers tried to murdering the plaintiff on the other hand, and in the process, women who concealed the plaintiff were forced to resign from money and rape.

In the event that the plaintiff returned to Naria, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful despite the possibility of persecution from Borocco damage.

(1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the Refugee Act;

arrow