logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.10.29 2020구단15379
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 June 11, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Skistan”), who is a national of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Skistan”).

B. On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant. On March 11, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “disposition of this case”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be detrimental to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On March 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice against the instant disposition. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as the instant disposition on June 19, 2020.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff, who was engaged in the business of installing a sound device in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was subject to assault and intimidation by C due to disputes arising in connection with a contract for installing a sound device with C, a member of the National Assembly who is a member of the Party B, and was subsequently subject to intimidation on the ground that the Plaintiff concluded a contract for installing a sound device

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee was unlawful even though there was a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution when she returned to her home country.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, the Minister of Justice is a race, religion, nationality, and specific social group.

arrow