logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.11.15 2018구단18894
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 September 1, 2014 with the status of stay C-3 (short-term visit) (short-term visit) of the Republic of Senegal (Roegal) (hereinafter “Senegal”).

B. On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on September 8, 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 that there is a risk of persecution” as stipulated in 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 October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground on March 21, 2018.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is Muslim, and the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's mother

The plaintiff's reference wanted to marry with the deceased village, and the plaintiff was a woman-friendly woman who was a newborn baby, and was pregnant in a state where he was not married around 2013.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's reference threatens to kill the plaintiff, and the third party of the plaintiff's reference threatens that the plaintiff's family members would also join the plaintiff's female-child organization and cause the death around 2013, and therefore, the plaintiff's family members could not return to the third party's home country.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not accept the plaintiff's application for refugee status should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Determination 1.

arrow