난민불인정결정취소
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 refugee application - Plaintiff’s nationality: Bangladesh - Entry and refugee application: August 2, 2010 (Status of Sojourn: Non-professional Employment (E-9)) on June 1, 2015
B. The Defendant’s decision not to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) - Grounds for not recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”): No sufficiently-founded fear of fear that is likely to be harmful to gambling may be recognized.
(c) Plaintiff’s objection and decision of dismissal - Decision of dismissal: The fact that there is no dispute on December 14, 2015 / [based on recognition], Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s statement Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion from around 1998, the Plaintiff joined the Republic of Korea as a member of Isra, and there is a fear that there is sufficient grounds to recognize that the Plaintiff would be persecution for a certain social group’s member’s status or political opinion inasmuch as he/she suffered violence from the members of Isra in the Republic of Korea when visiting the Republic of Korea on October 25, 2014, and on November 2014, he/she could be arrested and detained when he/she returned to the Republic of Bangladesh due to his/her absence of the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act provides that “Refugee” means 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 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.” In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the aforementioned evidence, the evidence as mentioned in subparagraph 2, and the purport of the entire arguments as stated in subparagraph 4, and the Plaintiff’s membership or political opinion.