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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts and the part concerning which the plaintiff claims additional in the court of first instance under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Then, the first instance court's decision No. 4 provides that "(On the other hand, the plaintiff was unable to reside at a low domicile due to his/her labor for his/her livelihood, and thus failed to receive litigation documents, and the previous lawsuit was withdrawn due to his/her failure to attend the date for pleading, and does not simply request refugee applications for extension of his/her stay. However, if he/she filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition for non-recognition of refugee status, he/she is under a brupt and is unable to be protected by the country of nationality, and he/she did not request refugee applications for extension of his/her stay. However, if he/she filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition for non-recognition of refugee status, he/she was unable to reside at a low domicile due to his/her own recognition of the situation and the importance of the lawsuit, and even
2. Determination on the additional argument
A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion on the establishment of the refugee system; (b) the movement of the international community extending the grounds for recognition of refugee status; and (c) the need to flexibly interpret “specific members of a social group” pursuant to subparagraph 2 of the UN Guidelines on International Protection prepared by the Refugee Agency; and (d) the subject of gambling is not limited to State agencies; and (e) the threat of the Plaintiff constitutes “borging on the ground of the status of
B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the concept and standard of recognition of “persecution based on the status of a member of a specific social group” as a requirement for recognition of refugee status as the requirement for recognition of refugee status.