logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.03.21 2018구단76593
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 is well-known.

A foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea"), who entered the Republic of Korea on October 25, 2016, with the status of stay C-3 (short-term Visit).

B. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but the Defendant, on December 5, 2017, issued a disposition for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On December 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as on September 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was originally a newborn baby, but around February 2015, the Plaintiff sought a proposal to offer the principal of the Muslim school to Islamic students.

However, the commitment has not been observed, and the plaintiff re-satised to the model of the model of the model on March 2016.

The plaintiff was unable to obtain trust from the slives and the slives of high-speed villages due to the above two types of dogmatics, and was faced with various difficulties in living.

It is difficult to live back to the high-speed village.

Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act provides that a person who is a refugee is a race, religion, nationality, and specific person.

arrow