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: short-term visit of short-term stay status (C-3) on July 24, 2006, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea of the Republic of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the date of the application for refugee status recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, all of which are written by the court of the decision on June 14, 2016, which was rendered on July 28, 2016: The grounds for refugee status non-recognition cannot be sufficiently based upon which the decision was made on July 28, 2016: the facts that there was no dispute as to the grounds for recognition of the decision to dismiss the decision on August 26, 2016; the facts that there was no ground for recognition of the decision to dismiss
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a national of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter “the Philippines”).
The plaintiff was requested to join the NPA (New Pople) organization, which is an anti-government organization, and rejected it.
The NPA threatenings the plaintiff to die, and the plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea regardless of the damaged Philippines.
As such, the Plaintiff should be recognized as a refugee since it is likely to threaten the NPA side 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 to be protected 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, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion, or a foreigner who is not a national who, due to such fear, is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country of nationality before entering the Republic of Korea.” 2) The foregoing evidence and the statement in the evidence No. 3 reveal the following circumstances that can be known by adding the whole arguments to the purport of the pleading in addition to the statement in the evidence No. 3, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has “a well-founded fear of being injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.”