난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasons for this court's acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, except for adding the arguments and judgments under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the possibility of gambling depending on the possibility of additional political attention is that the Plaintiff was arrested and detained by the government as a member of the National Assembly as a member of the National Assembly. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the means government does not pay attention to the Plaintiff.
In the event that the Plaintiff returned to the means, the Plaintiff would engage in counter-government activities, such as participation in party activities and demonstrations, according to his political belief. Thus, even if the means government did not pay attention to the Plaintiff so far, it is clear that the means government will conflict with the government authorities, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of gambling against the Plaintiff.
Judgment
On the other hand, the government's opinion and other political opinion itself do not serve as a basis for claiming the status of refugee, and the foreigner applying for refugee status must prove that the foreigner is a person with fear that he/she would be persecution due to such opinion.
There is no evidence to view that the Plaintiff had engaged in political activities to the extent of receiving political attention even before leaving the means, and in light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was stuffed, there is no reasonable and objective basis for the existence of fear of fear that the Plaintiff would suffer persecution as claimed by the Plaintiff.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there is “a well-founded fear of persecution,” and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff's main means of claiming the possibility of gambling according to the situation at the time of departure may not be able to block the departure of a person at issue in Korea.