logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.17 2015구단21271
난민불인정결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On March 30, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status to the Defendant on May 13, 2014 while entering and staying in the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit visa (C-3 and 60 days of stay) on March 30, 2014.

On April 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 28, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on September 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 was a paradician from Egbo, and the plaintiff's parent died of his/her own terrorism, a Islamic armed terrorism organization, around April 10, 2014, when the plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea and stayed in his/her business.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case, which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee, is unlawful even though it is highly likely that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to terrorism of Bobane as above when the plaintiff returned to Austria.

Judgment

It is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances known by adding the respective descriptions and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including paper numbers) to the above facts of recognition. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the disposition of the Defendant in this case is legitimate.

The risk of terrorism of Borocis is only a social issue, which is a universal risk existing in Borocia, and thus, it is specific and reliable to be imprisoned with attention from Borocis.

arrow