난민불인정결정취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s addition to the pertinent part of the judgment as to the matters alleged by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The following details shall be added between the first instance judgment’s 4 pages 5 and 6.
The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the vulnerability country index of Pakistan in 2020 is high above 25 (No. 4-1-3) and that it is difficult to receive a fair trial due to the lack of protection by public authority or due to the lack of possibility of being protected by public authority under Article 4 of the UN Refugee Guidelines on International Protection of Communications in the alternative Republic of Korea (UNFCCC No. 5).
However, according to the criteria for "reasonable analysis" criteria set forth in the above guidelines, even if it is based on the reasonable analysis, it cannot be recognized that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that it is difficult for the plaintiff to resolve the problem through alternative migration to other regions in Pakistan only by a private person D and E, who is not a State agency, not a State agency, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and it is difficult to expect the exercise of public power as to the above problems of private threats solely on the ground that there is a high vulnerable state index in Pakistan.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.
The following shall be added between the first instance judgment 4 Myeon 15 and 16 Myeon 16:
The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that as long as the Refugee Act grants re-application for refugee status, the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as a ground for non-recognition of refugee status as to the instant application for refugee status solely on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status in the past and received a final and conclusive judgment that was lost by the court after
It is new that allowing the re-application by the previous civil law has a new reason for recognition of refugee status.