난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In the course of the disposition, the following facts: (a) on August 23, 2005, the date of applying for refugee status non-professional employment (E-9) (E-9) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 27, 2016, the date of applying for refugee status recognition; (b) on September 7, 2016, the date of the application for refugee status recognition; (c) there is no dispute over the grounds of recognition of the decision to dismiss the decision on October 18, 2016; (d) there is no ground of recognition of the decision to dismiss the decision on June 8, 2017; (e) Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and 2; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a national of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter “the Philippines”).
In around 2003, the Plaintiff rejected the demand from NPA (New People), an anti-military organization, to recruit its members, and received a homicide.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in the Republic of Korea since he left the Philippines.
As such, the Plaintiff should be recognized as a refugee because it is likely to threaten the NPA if he/she returns to the Philippines.
B. Determination 1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines refugee status as “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 specific social group or political opinion, or who is a stateless foreigner who is unable or does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea due to such fear.” 2) The aforementioned evidence and evidence as stated in subparag. 3-1, 2, 4, 6, 7 evidence, 8-1, 8-2 can be known by adding the whole arguments to the purport of the pleading. In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecutioning on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group or political opinion.”