logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.09.18 2015구단7381
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 March 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status and was staying there on June 3, 2013, and applied for refugee status recognition to the Defendant on June 3, 2013.

B. On April 30, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 22, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on April 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is Magbo, which is a part of the village origin from Magnaomoma (Onicah). The plaintiff's assertion is an Magbo.

The father of the Plaintiff was the president of the traditional religion of Allagba (Alagbaga) in the above Oral Village, but the Plaintiff’s father died in around 2000, and the Plaintiff began to demand the Plaintiff to succeed to the president position from April 7, 2010.

Since the plaintiff refused the above demand on the ground that he was infinite, he got a zero attack by the villager and she maths left side and removed a strict finger by an operation.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which was made on a different premise, is unlawful, even though the plaintiff's refusal to succeed to the position of the president was likely to be stuffed from the village in the case of the plaintiff's return to Austria.

나. 관계 법령 ▣ 구 출입국관리법 2012. 2. 10. 법률 제11298호로...

arrow