logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.05.23 2019구단1329
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 India on February 1, 2017, with the status of stay B-2 (tourism) of the Republic of India (hereinafter “ India”).

B. On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on August 17, 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 of persecution” as prescribed by 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 September 11, 2017, 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 as on September 14, 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 the city bridgedo in which the plaintiff was residing in the country of Jmu and Kashmir.

In the case of the plaintiff's high village, many Muslims were residing, and since 2010, the plaintiff entered the subject that may threaten the plaintiff in the application for refugee status as "C", but later, refers to "B from the refugee interview investigation".

From now, it began to be threatened with the belief of Islamic intercourse.

On December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to violence from other Muslim than B, which was found at the Plaintiff’s house on December 31, 2016, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was threatened with verbal murder from B.

In the event that the plaintiff returns to India, it is still against the right to life or physical freedom from the slives of ancient village, including B.

arrow