logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.03.05 2014구합20797
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’s status and entry and departure details 1) The Plaintiff is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Pakistan”).

(2) On October 29, 2008, the Plaintiff visited Pakistan during the pertinent period of stay from December 2, 2011 to January 14, 2012 after entering the Republic of Korea with the status of non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn (E-9) sojourn, and finally, through several extensions of sojourn period, could last stay until August 28, 2013.

B. (1) On August 23, 2013, the time when the period of sojourn expires, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee recognition with the Defendant. On December 6, 2013, the Defendant issued a refugee non-recognition disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” as a refugee requirement under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

(2) On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 6, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on June 27, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around 2003, the Plaintiff is the Awami Natives of the People’s Republic of Korea (hereinafter “NP”).

(B) The Plaintiff’s family members were called “I would die without withdrawal from theNP party” on two occasions from the lebane when the Plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea and visited Pakistan around 2011.

3. Therefore, in the event that the Plaintiff returned to Pakistan, there is a risk of persecution from the lelebane on the grounds of the above political opinion.

arrow