난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The details of the disposition are as follows: (a) the entry in the visa exemption (B-1) on January 23, 2016 of the date of the Plaintiff’s nationality Russia’s entry into the Republic of Korea; (b) the date of the application for refugee status recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on March 22, 2016; (b) the date of the application for refugee status recognition; (c) the date of the decision on May 4, 2016; (d) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition of the decision of rejection on June 7, 2016; (d) the entry in the evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as of the date of the application
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a national of the Russian Federation of Russia (hereinafter “ Russia”).
The plaintiff initially worked as a national of the Dazistististan, together with the punishment of the Dazististan.
However, after the death of the same sentence as the business, the creditors of the punishment were threatened with the occurrence of the penalty and the occurrence of the penalty. The plaintiff acquired the nationality of Russia who suffered from the damage.
However, the creditors of the punishment sought for Russia and threatened the plaintiff, and the plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea regardless of the damaged Russia.
As such, if the Plaintiff returned to Russia, it should be recognized as a refugee because it is likely to threaten the creditors of the punishment.
B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines a refugee as “a foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected from 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 particular social group, or political opinion, or who, due to such fear, does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea, or who is a state of nationality and who does not want to return.”
In this case, the threat of the plaintiff's return to the case is a general tort by a private person.