○○○ (Limited Law LLC, Attorneys Lee Im-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Justice

June 12, 2012

1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-recognition of refugee status against the Plaintiff on May 25, 2011 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 23, 1994, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the qualification as an industrial trainee in the name of △△△△△, a person who is the second person, and returned to his home country on March 2, 1998. On May 29, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a visa for industrial training in the name of ○○○○ (Minin Master) and entered the Republic of Korea on August 28, 2009, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on August 28, 2009 pursuant to Article 76-2 of the Immigration Control Act.

B. On May 25, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of denial of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been faced with “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as the instant disposition on November 3, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The right of the Union of Myanmar has continued to implement a labor pressure policy, such as discriminating against a minority group, including Karen, committing harsh acts, or forced confiscation of land. The Plaintiff participated in the 88888 dispute in Myanmar and resisted against the minority’s carbon pressure policy of the Union of Myanmar. In addition, the Plaintiff made a demonstration before the Embassy of the Union of Myanmar in Korea for the democracy of the Union of Myanmar in the Republic of Korea, and carried out a seminars with members of the Democratic People’s Association (hereinafter “NLD”), and on July 11, 2009, the disposition of the Union of Myanmar (hereinafter “KNU”), established the branch of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “KNU”), and conducted its design duty, and the Plaintiff would be subject to punishment for the Plaintiff’s activities under the Act on the Recovery of Myanmar and the Act on the Punishment of the Plaintiff’s Acts and subordinate statutes.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i) the general conditions of Myanmar;

A) The Myanmar is comprised of 2/3 of the total population of 54 million, and the remainder is comprised of 100 ethnic minoritiess, such as Catho, Catho, Catho, Catho, Latho, Latho, and Latra.

B) The Myanmar collapses of the socialist regime that has been pending for 26 years due to a democratization demonstration that occurred on August 8, 1988. However, Nonparty 1 started to be a new military father, such as the suppression of a democratization movement and the dissolution of the Assembly, by organizing the National Law and Organization of the Council for the Restoration of Legal Order and Order (hereinafter referred to as the “SLORC”).

C) On May 27, 1990, SLORC implemented a presidential line for the formation of the Congress, and Nonparty 2 secured seats of at least 80% of which Nonparty 2 moved on the said presidential line. Accordingly, SLORC declared the invalidity of the presidential line and held that it would convene a Council after the enactment of the Constitution.

D) Since November 1997, SOLC was dissatised by the National Peace Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “SPDC”), and its transition military regime system continued to be maintained by the Chairman of SPDC as the head of the State, such as holding concurrent offices with the Minister of National Defense and the third army commander. On May 2008, SPDC conducted a national referendum for the enactment of the Constitution. On March 11, 2010, SPDC officially invalidated the results of the collective election of 1990s, and conducted a collective election on November 7, 2010.

E) The Act on the Restoration of Legal Order in Myanmar is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years but not more than twenty years with respect to the instigate, assembly, speech, statement, document, and dissemination for the purpose of weakening national security, social peace and peace, and the control of law and order (Articles 3 and 4). The National Security Act of Myanmar provides that it has the authority to restrict a person whose fundamental rights are restricted by the Central Committee (Article 7). The Act provides that a person whose fundamental rights are restricted by the Central Committee may be detained from 90 days to 180 days, and may restrict his behavior or place of residence, freedom of travel, possession or possession of specified objects (Article 11).

(ii) gambling against the minority groups of the Union of Myanmar;

A) Since 1989, the Union of Myanmar entered into an agreement with 28 anti-military forces. However, in order to eliminate the base of the anti-military forces, the Government of the Union of Myanmar established large-scale military installations in the area of the Union, confiscated the land of residents, and forced the development of the region, etc., and lost a considerable number of residents’ base of life.

B) In around 1947, Canada formed KNU by asserting its autonomy and independence and establishing it as an independent independent military organization, and formed a Karen National Marbern Sea Defense (hereinafter “KNL”) under its own military organization, and developed an armed strike against the Myanmar government since 1949.

C) While the number of members increased to approximately 20,00 in the 1980s, the number of members of the Union of the Union of Myanmar decreased to approximately 4,00 in 206, the number of members of the Union of Myanmar decreased to approximately 200,00, and the number of carrens exceeded 200,000 as a continuous dispute, went to a refugee in the border area of Thailand, etc., and on January 12, 2012, the number of members of the Union of the Union and the KNU, despite the conclusion of the cooperation agreement between the Government of the Union of Myanmar and the KNU, were to escape to China through border.

D) In Myanmar, discrimination against the minority group of the government and the majority of the ethnic groups is widespread. The conflict between the military and the government has caused serious pressure of human rights. However, the conflict between the military and the rest of the ethnic group brings about serious human rights pressure. While the Union of Myanmar is self-influence of murder, rape, assault, adviser, forced labor, etc. in the area in which the military is living in relatives, sirens, etc., and even though it is smaller than the behavior committed by the Government Armed Forces, there is a problem of infringement of human rights by a minority national armed organization (No. 9 evidence, No. 1, 2, 2002, 207, 207).

E) According to the report held around December 201 on the basis of verbal testimony, photographs, and written materials, etc. by collecting cases of human rights violations in the Myanmar Eastern area, a human rights organization, and then, the Myanmar Government considers the NAU as an anti-government activity, and punished not only those who support or support the NAU as well as those who contact the NANL with the Karen residents, and there is a threat that the residents of the Myanmar East Eastern area, including Karens, do not comply with the order of prohibition of movement or participate in the military team.

3) The Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea and political activities before and after entry

A) On August 8, 198, the Plaintiff participated in an anti-government demonstration by students pursuant to the decision of the National Burma Students Union. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was arrested in the police of Myanmar for three months at the time of his/her arrest. On November 10 of the same year, the Plaintiff was released on November 10, 198, but was enrolled in a high school where he/she was absent from the school due to the failure to submit a covenant to prevent the recurrence of the parent’s name.

B) Even after release, the Plaintiff sought medicine related to the Malar treatment for the KNLA, or was engaged in the work to help a Karen-sene refugee residing in the Thai border area, and received a double the police’s number.

C) The Union of Myanmar, around 199, forfeited land owned by the Plaintiff and its family members on the ground that it newly constructed a military establishment, and thereby, the Plaintiff and its family members suffered difficulties in their livelihood.

D) On December 2006, the Plaintiff, while staying in the Republic of Korea, was organized at the meeting of the branch of a carren-friendly clan, and was engaged in the activities such as collecting and remitting money for the refugee status in the border of the territory of the Union in Myanmar. On July 2009, the Plaintiff established the Dog Doge branch of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of carrying out political activities such as acquiring the right to self-governing power of carren-s, and was approved by the Doge branch of the Republic of Korea around June 2010.

E) In addition, the Plaintiff, along with the NLD members working in Korea, was holding seminars, and the conference was held several times to resist the Soviet Union of the Union of Myanmar and to urge Nonparty 2 to release political offenders, including Nonparty 2, etc. before the Embassy of Myanmar.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, Gap's 3, 6 through 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, Eul's evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including each number), the result of the personal examination of the plaintiff, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 76-2(1) of the Refugee Convention, Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, the Minister of Justice shall recognize a foreigner in the Republic of Korea who is unable or does not want the protection of the country of his/her nationality due to well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as a refugee under the Refugee Convention upon the request of the foreigner.

A refugee may be recognized even in the event of a “reasonable fear of persecution” as a result of an act such as expressing political opinions in a country of residence after leaving his/her country of nationality, and it does not change on the ground that he/she provided a cause of persecution to be protected as a refugee.

The term "persecution" which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status can be deemed as "act causing serious infringement of or discrimination against essential human dignity, including threats to life, body or freedom," and it is necessary to prove that there is a "comfortablely-founded fear" subject to such persecution. However, considering the special circumstances of refugee status, it is reasonable to recognize the facts based on the credibility of the overall statement in light of the following: the course of entry, the period from entry to refugee application, the period from entry, the background of refugee application, the situation of the country of nationality, the degree of fear of subjective fear, the political, social, and cultural environment of the region in which the applicant resides, the degree of fear of his/her ordinary people feel in the same situation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du3930, Jul. 24, 2008).

2) The plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea in around 1994 and returned to Myanmar in around 1998. The plaintiff re-entered the Republic of Korea under the name of ○○○ in 2001 and applied for refugee status of this case on August 2009. In addition, the plaintiff's statement is somewhat inconsistent or exaggerated in terms of the circumstances leading up to the entry into the Republic of Korea, the motive and motive of the Republic of Korea, the anti-government activities in Myanmar, and the gambling in Myanmar. However, considering the above facts recognized and the following circumstances known, it is determined that there is a well-founded fear that the plaintiff would be subject to gambling by the Myanmar government.

A) The Plaintiff, due to the dispute of 8888, was confined to a Sejong Prison, which is a political offender, and received several times as a result of the Plaintiff’s activities to aid a Karens refugee, etc. even thereafter, and the Plaintiff’s family members suffered economic difficulties due to the expropriation of the land owned by the Plaintiff’s family members by the Union of Myanmar, etc., making relatively consistent and concrete statements on the important parts of the contents of anti-government activities and gambling in Myanmar.

B) In the instant case, it is sufficiently recognized through various data on the state’s political situation, such as data and reports of human rights organizations, that a minority group of Myanmar, such as Karens, is subject to murder, rape, assault, adviser and forced labor force for a considerable period of time from the Government of Myanmar to the Government of the Republic of Myanmar or the Government of the Government of the Republic of Myanmar, and land being mobilized in the forced labor force or used as a basis for livelihood. The foregoing act committed by the Government of the Myanmar, etc. against Marens, constitutes “persecution” which causes serious infringement of, or discrimination against, essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom. The most gambling content of the Plaintiff’s statement is consistent with the political situation of the Myanmar, recognized by data on the state’s political situation of Myanmar.

C) In the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff’s act of supporting the Karen-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-

D) Although the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he had entered the Republic of Korea for economic purposes, in light of the Plaintiff’s details of various activities to support the Plaintiff’s Myanmar and the Republic of Korea as well as to improve human rights, and the disadvantage that the Union of Myanmar had already received or would have already been received from the Myanmar government, and the pressure policy on the Karens, etc. taken by the Union of Myanmar, the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status does not seem to be simply for the purpose of extending the period of stay in

E) The change in the political situation of Myanmar, such as the change of the President of the Union of Myanmar into a reasonable and sound person, release a political offender, and entering into a cooperation agreement with the KNU, etc. However, even thereafter, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s risk of persecution was extinguished solely on the foregoing circumstances alone, on the ground that it is difficult to view that there was a temporary change in the status of Karen’s human rights, as it is difficult to view that there was a temporary change in the status of Karen’s human rights, such as the Karen’s government group of the Union of Myanmar and the KNLA, and that 25,000 people face combat battles between the KNU and the KNLA.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)