난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The circumstances leading to the decision of the non-resident status ① The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on November 16, 2019 with the status of stay (C-3) of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algera (People Algeri) B, a second-term visit (C-3), and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on December 2, 2019 on the ground that “the threat of the obligor’s credit” was “the threat of the obligor’s credit”.
② On December 18, 2019, the Defendant does not seem to have received a threat corresponding to the Plaintiff’s gambling.
The threat of human being is a matter that requires the protection of its government.
“A decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) was made on the ground that the case was, etc.
③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on October 22, 2020.
[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff lent money from Mag-ri to Mag-ri, and the plaintiff was unable to pay the money because all walk's disease with Ag-ri disease were abolished.
For this reason, creditors and their siblings have threatened the plaintiff with murder.
Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.
3. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of the Victims, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of the Victims, and Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol on the Status of the Victims, “persecution” which is the requirement for recognition of the victims should be based on “a race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”
The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff do not, in itself, refer to “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion,” which is the cause of persecution, which serves as the requirement for recognition as a civilian.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
4. The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.