logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.04.17 2014구합19025
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 9, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a visa of non-professional employment (E-9) on July 9, 2008, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 30, 2013.

B. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant issued a non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no “proving sufficient grounds for persecution” (see Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees; Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 17, 2014, but was dismissed on September 26, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff visited Pakistan from March 5, 2012 to May 22, 2013, when staying in the Republic of Korea, as Sunjb Puna.

On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and her 80 persons, together with the Plaintiff’s her 80 persons, were holding events to commemorate B at the Plaintiff’s home on May 4, 2012. However, the Plaintiff and her 3-4 employees of the “Ja-Sa-Ul-Dwa” group, including Neman D, reported that they would die if they would die.” Even on May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff and her 3-4 employees were to find the Plaintiff’s house and “40,000 if they would not open the Plaintiff’s house,” but the Plaintiff and her her son refused to comply with the Plaintiff’s request.

Along on April 25, 2013, Geul-gra and lighting staff have found the plaintiff's house and laid the right bridge at the time of the plaintiff's attachment.

In the event that the plaintiff returned to Pakistan, there is a well-founded fear that there is a sufficient ground for persecution by the members of the above hydropha violence organization.

arrow