난민불인정결정취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case
A. The summary of the instant case is the case seeking the revocation of a disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff’s refugee status on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for recognition of refugee status against the Defendant based on the Refugee Act, but did not recognize the Plaintiff’s refugee status from the Defendant.
The judgment of the first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is no fear that there is sufficient grounds for persecution as prescribed in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, and the Plaintiff appealed against this.
[Attachment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes]
B. The plaintiff is a male (C) of Egypt nationality of Egypt, and the defendant is the head of the Immigration Office to whom the Minister of Justice delegated the authority to recognize the status of a refugee pursuant to Articles 8 and 46 of the Refugee Act and Article 24 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act.
B. On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as tourist transit and sojourn status (B-2, 30 days) and applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant on May 7, 2015.
However, on July 14, 2015, the Defendant rejected the recognition of the status of a refugee against the Plaintiff on the ground that the “sufficient fear of persecution” prescribed as a requirement for recognition of a refugee status under Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol is not recognized.
On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Plaintiff’s objection and the decision of dismissal by the Minister of Justice against the Plaintiff, based on Article 21(1) of the Refugee Act, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for recognition of refugee status on December 14, 2015.