logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.04.25 2019구단1145
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 on February 18, 2016, with the nationality of the Kyggyz Red (hereinafter “Kygyz Red”) and the status of stay C-3 (short-term visit) of the Republic of Korea.

B. On August 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on June 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered 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 August 2, 2017, 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 Minister of Justice on November 29, 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 is the most races of the Kz, which is a majority of the Kz, and on September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff married with the hzbec female of Uzbekistan’s nationality.

After that, the plaintiff was threatened by the residents of the village to divorce or live in Uzbekistan.

In addition, the Plaintiff reported to the police that the obligor who borrowed money from the Plaintiff did not pay the money. Since then, the Plaintiff was threatened from April 2015 to November 2015 that the obligor would continue to withdraw from the bad faith that the obligor sent, and was subject to violence.

If the plaintiff returns to KIKO, he/she is still likely to be threatened with the right to life or physical freedom from village residents and bad faiths.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.

arrow