出入國管理法上 難民認定行爲의 法的 性格과 難民認定要件 (The Legal Nature and the Requirements of the Refugee Recognition in the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국행정판례연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 행정판례연구 / 15권 / 1호 / 35 ~ 70페이지
· 저자명 : 임재홍

초록

우리나라가 1992년 12월 3일 「난민협약」 및 「난민의정서」에 가입하고 그 후속조치로서 1993년 「출입국관리법」을 개정하여 난민지위의 보장을 위하여 필요한 난민관련 규정을 신설한 바 있다. 그러나 난민인정자의 비율은 매우 낮다. 난민인정비율이 낮은 데에는 여러 이유가 있겠지만, 무엇보다도 박해가능성의 입증책임과 입증의 정도를 엄격하게 운영하고, 나아가 「출입국관리법」상 난민인정행위의 성격을 재량행위로 이해하는 데도 이유가 있다고 본다.
행정법원은 난민인정을 하는 경우 해당 외국인에게 일정한 범위 내에서 적법한 국내체재자격을 부여하는 비호의 취지가 당연히 포함되어 있는 것으로 해석해야 하므로 난민인정행위를 단순히 신청자가 「난민협약」 등에서 정한 난민의 요건을 갖추었는지 확인하는 의미에 그치는 것으로 볼 수는 없고, 난민의 요건을 갖춘 외국인에게 일정한 권리를 부여하는 설권행위로서 이에 관하여 재량이 부여된 것으로 보아야 할 것이라고 해석한다(서울행정법원 2006. 1. 26. 선고 2005구합21859 판결).
또한 행정법원은 박해의 원인으로 인종, 종교, 국적, 특정 사회집단의 구성원 신분 또는 정치적 견해 등 다섯 가지를 들면서, 이를 엄격히 해석하고 있다. 또한 박해가능성에 대한 입증 역시 전체적인 신빙성과 이를 뒷받침할 일관성과 설득력이 필요하다고 보고 있다.
그러나 행정법원이 난민인정행위를 재량행위로 보고 있는 근거인 「난민협약」 제12조 제1호나 난민인정행위의 설권행위성은 상당한 문제가 있다. 또한 박해가능성의 충분성을 입증하는 것 역시 문제가 있다. 대법원 판결은 이러한 문제점을 교정하는 역할을 하였다고 볼 수 있다.
반면 대법원은 난민인정행위를 기속행위로 이해하여 행정법원의 판결을 부인하였다(대법원 2008. 7. 24. 선고 2007두3930 판결). 또한 난민인정개념이나 박해가능성의 입증 정도 역시 합리성 범주로 판단하여 완화시키고 있다. 대법원 판결에 의할 때 「난민협약」이나 「난민의정서」 가입에 따른 효과가 기대될 수 있는 것이다.

영어초록

According to the 1951 United Nations 「Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees」, A refugee is “a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country”. Every year millions of people face persecution for traits they cannot control or exercising their religious or political beliefs. When governments fail to protect these rights, people have the right to move to a country that will protect them.
Until a request for refuge has been accepted, the person is referred to as an asylum seeker. Only after the recognition of the asylum seeker's protection needs, he or she is officially referred to as a refugee and enjoys refugee status, which carries certain rights and obligations according to the legislation of the receiving country.
The Republic of Korea joined the 「Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees」 and 「Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees」 in 1992. But only a limited number of asylum seekers have been approved by the ministry of Justice. The nation has so far granted refugee status to only 101 of 2,168 asylum seekers(1994-2008). it is also not easy to see their claims accepted by the court because of rigid guidelines that must be met.
The practical determination of whether a person is a refugee or not is most often left to certain government agencies within the host country. This can lead to abuse in a country with a very restrictive official immigration policy; for example, that the country will neither recognize the refugee status of the asylum seekers nor see them as legitimate migrants and treat them as illegal aliens.
Korean justice minister and court enforce stricter regulations for the application of refugee status for asylum seekers, for example the reasons of persecution, well-founded fear, the proof of fear etc.
In this case Seoul Administration Court ruled in unfavor of the seven Kongo nationals who filed a suit against the Korean justice minister's decision of refusing to grant them refugee status. The court said in the ruling that: “The complainants were able to prove their suppression by the Kongo government over their activities. Also if they were to be deported, they would undergo suppression once again, sounds unreliable”(Seoul Administration Court 2006. 1. 26. 2005Kuheop21859 decision). The Seoul Administration Court rejected other requests for acknowledgement because they could not prove being suppressed for their activities.
The Supreme Court stated that it granted refugee status to the one of the asylum seekers, overturning a decision by Seoul Administrative Court(Supreme Court 2008.7.24. 2007두3930 decision). It is very significant case to recognize in the perspective of International Human Rights Law. Especially The Supreme Court demonstrated that the subjective fear should be based on an objective situation, which in turn made that fear plausible and reasonable in the circumstance. The Supreme Court also denied discretion of the legal nature of the Refugee-Recognition.
In terms of international human rights law, it is necessary that the immigration law is required to explicitly provide for the spirit of 「Universal Declaration of Human Rights」 and 「Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees」, and for the nation to accept more refugees to relieve their pains and advocate universal values. And Enacting a single domestic refugee law implemented by international human rights norms, will be a symbol of developed legal system to protect the right to life and physical security of the refugees.

참고자료

· 없음