대법원은 지난 2008. 7. 24.선고 2007두3930 판결에서 난민협약 제1조 소정의 ‘난민’에 대한 법리를 최초로 제시한바 있다. 대법원은 대상판결에서 난민 인정의 요건이 되는 ‘박해’라 함은 ‘생명, 신체 또는 자유에 대한 위협을 비롯하여 인간의 본질적 존엄성에 대한 중대한 침해나 차별을 야기하는 행위’라고 할 수 있다고 설시하였다. 대상판결은 대법원 차원에서 처음으로 난민협약이라는 국제조약에 따라 외국인의 난민 지위가 인정된 사건이라는 점에서 뿐만 아니라, ‘박해’의 개념 정의를 최초로 제시한 선도적 판결이라는 점에서 그 가치가 매우 크다. 이러한 박해 개념은 생명 또는 신체적 자유에 대한 위협이라는 전형적 의미에서의 박해뿐만 아니라, 인간의 존엄과 가치를 심각하게 훼손하는 행위까지 박해에 포함시킴으로써, 국제법과 인권 그리고 인도주의에 대한 우리나라 대법원의 선진적인 입장을 잘 나타낸 것이라 하겠다. 대법원이 대상판결에서 제시한 출입국관리법 제2조 제2의2호 소정의 ‘난민’에 대한 법리는 헌법상의 국제법 존중 정신, 난민협약의 목적, 주요 선진국들의 관행, 학계의 의견 등을 종합적으로 고려한 결과라고 평가할 수 있을 것이다.

On 24 July, 2008, in the 2007Du3930 case, the Supreme Court of Korea firstly delivered legal principles and standards applicable to the term ‘refugee’ defined in the article 1 (A) (2) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In the case, the Court said that ‘persecution’ means ‘any act which may cause any serious infringement of or discrimination against the essential dignity of human being, including any threat to life, physical integrity, or freedom.’ The case can be referred as a seminal case on refugee for the reasons that: a foreign political refugee applicant was firstly recognized as refugee according the 1951 Refugee Convention at the Supreme Court level; the meaning of ‘persecution’, one of the most important reasons of the term ‘refugee’ in the Convention, was firstly interpreted. In addition, the above mentioned definition of ‘persecution’ in the case well shows the Court’s enhanced attitude to international law, human rights, and humanitarianism. In deliberating the case, the Court duly considered the spirit of the Korean Constitution which affirms respect for international law, the purpose of the Convention, the practices of the Convention’s main contracting states, academic opinions as well. Indeed, all of these consideration resulted in the legal principles and standards applicable to the term ‘refugee’ in the article 2 paragraph 2(2) of the Immigration Control Act in the case.

On 24 July, 2008, in the 2007Du3930 case, the Supreme Court of Korea firstly delivered legal principles and standards applicable to the term ‘refugee’ defined in the article 1 (A) (2) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In the case, the Court said that ‘persecution’ means ‘any act which may cause any serious infringement of or discrimination against the essential dignity of human being, including any threat to life, physical integrity, or freedom.’ The case can be referred as a seminal case on refugee for the reasons that: a foreign political refugee applicant was firstly recognized as refugee according the 1951 Refugee Convention at the Supreme Court level; the meaning of ‘persecution’, one of the most important reasons of the term ‘refugee’ in the Convention, was firstly interpreted. In addition, the above mentioned definition of ‘persecution’ in the case well shows the Court’s enhanced attitude to international law, human rights, and humanitarianism. In deliberating the case, the Court duly considered the spirit of the Korean Constitution which affirms respect for international law, the purpose of the Convention, the practices of the Convention’s main contracting states, academic opinions as well. Indeed, all of these consideration resulted in the legal principles and standards applicable to the term ‘refugee’ in the article 2 paragraph 2(2) of the Immigration Control Act in the case.

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, refugee, persecution, political opinion.