(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.21 2018구단374

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.21 2018구단374

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 November 26, 2015 as a foreigner with the nationality of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter “the Republic of the Philippines”).

B. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on October 10, 2016, 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 “profuges with sufficient grounds for fear 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.

C. On November 23, 2016, 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 on October 11, 2017.

[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 that the candidates for Nberal Part C and the D of Liberal Part D were competing in the market election in the region where the Plaintiff was residing.

At the time, both the plaintiff and his family members supported C candidates, and D candidates were elected.

Then, it was found that the plaintiff 3 was prosecuted by inserting Malina into the Maliba in the Malithal of the plaintiff 3rd village.

D Candidates exercise influence on the police, and when the plaintiff returns to the Philippines, its home country, there is a concern that it may threaten the life or physical freedom of the candidates.

In addition, the issue of narcotics that can only be delivered to the discharge of the Philippines, its home country, is one of the grounds for filing an application for recognition of refugee status of this case.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff's application for refugee status is rejected.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2018.05.10 2018구단52160

-서울행정법원 2018.10.18 2018구단15284

-서울행정법원 2019.04.25 2019구단746

-서울행정법원 2019.10.17 2019구단12053

-서울행정법원 2018.05.24 2018구단5997