logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.16 2018구단16485
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 entered the Republic of Korea under the short-term visit (C-3) on November 30, 2016, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 19, 2017.

B. On May 17, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer persecution” 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 May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 31, 2017, but was dismissed on March 21, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was the president of the village, who was believed to be indigenous in the high-speed village of Ageia.

In around 198, the plaintiff's father's father's father's father's relative, such as his father's sibling's punishment, demanded the plaintiff to succeed to the president's position.

The plaintiff could not respond to such a demand as a paradician curriculum, and rejected it, and escaped from neighboring countries such as Benin.

Nevertheless, the vice relatives continued to commit an attack against the Plaintiff while forcing the Plaintiff to succeed to the president position.

The plaintiff has lost his house due to his territorial attack and left the plaintiff together with his son who became aware of his house.

As such, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful, even though the Plaintiff was in a state of persecution for religious reasons in Austria.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 Subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, the race, religion, nationality, and specific social group.

arrow