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.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following addition to the text of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the first instance judgment, the following contents are added to “Insufficient,” following the first instance judgment of the first instance [the Plaintiff is not limited to the State today, and there is a need to interpret the status as a member of a specific social group today as a requirement for refugee, and in light of the situation of the state of Russia with strong organizational power of Mussia, etc., the Plaintiff must be recognized as a refugee. However, even though the possibility that the subject of gambling against a refugee is not limited to state agencies (Evidence 5) and Russia’s ability (Evidence 6) may not be ruled out because Russia’s ability to act in the behind the behind of the intimidation alleged by the Plaintiff, there may not be any conflict arising from personal debt issues as argued by the Plaintiff and on the ground of “a race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group or political opinion.” Moreover, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a case where not only is subject to a domestic legal protection from a collective debt-related institution, but also is hard to recognize as a threat to the above personal debt-related organization.
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.