logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.27 2015구단14785
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 January 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter referred to as “ASEAN”), entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn on a short-term basis, and stayed, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 3, 2013, prior to the expiration of the period of stay ( April 15, 2013).

B. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer persecution” as a refugee requirement under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff moved to Egysian community for business around 1992 as Egysian characters. The above area was merely 10% of Egysian population, while Egysian population was 90% of Egysian population.

The plaintiff's area is constantly exposed to the attack of Boco, and the family member of the plaintiff was killed on December 30, 2012 due to Boco Ba, and the plaintiff's house was on the part of the plaintiff's house.

The role of the IS branch that expands global influence by expanding the power in 2013 and threatening South-North areas. Therefore, when returning to the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff is likely to murder solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is a senior.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff is a refugee, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) Articles 2 subparag. 3 and 76-2(1) of the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 1 of the Convention Concerning the Status of Refugees; Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

arrow