logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.07.15 2016구단5603
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 July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with his/her nationality as a non-professional employment (E-9) status on July 6, 2010, and entered the Republic of Korea on October 12, 2013, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on November 12, 2013 after entering the Republic of Korea again on November 6, 2015.

B. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as 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 July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 20, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on December 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. From around 2012, the members of the Plaintiff’s argument Sakta Jti Mukti Mcora (hereinafter “SJM”) sought the Plaintiff’s home and Yang money farm, and threatened the Plaintiff’s father and wife to make a donation while pursuing the Plaintiff’s whereabouts, and threatened the Plaintiff’s family members of his/her family again seeking the Plaintiff’s wife who did not pay the donation, and urged the Plaintiff to kill the Plaintiff as they return to Korea if he/she did not promptly pay the donation.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which the Plaintiff did not recognize as a refugee despite the possibility of persecution in the event that the Plaintiff returned to his own country for the said reasons is unlawful.

B. (1) 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, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

arrow