난민불인정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
(a) Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea and application for recognition of refugee - Nationality: Kazaktan - Entry: February 8, 2017 (Status B-1) - Application for recognition of refugee status: March 28, 2017
B. Defendant’s decision to recognize refugee status as of April 14, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”): A’s ground for recognition cannot be recognized as having “a sufficiently-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol” (based on recognition) (Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol)
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion is highly likely to be harmful to the plaintiff's return to the country of nationality, since he/she witnessed that he/she was killed in Islamic Asia as a Islamic U.S. Epis, Epis, Epis, Epis, and then threatened with murders.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. The term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.
(No. 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status, refers to “any act causing serious infringement or discrimination on essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom,” and the fact that there is a “comfortable fear” subject to such persecution must be attested by a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378 Decided April 25, 2013). The entry of the evidence No. 3 reveals the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the following circumstances.