beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance
A. On July 4, 2016, the key issue of the instant case: (a) the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on July 4, 2016; (b) on July 20, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as having a ground, such as “not being able to be protected by the country of nationality due to a well-founded fear to recognize that he/she could be injured.”
The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff is a refugee under Article 2 (1) of the Refugee Act.
B. The first instance court’s decision 1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act provides that “Refugee” means a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected due to a well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, due to such fear, is unable to return to, or does not want to return to, the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea. 2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall arguments as a whole, the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, and 3 as well as evidence No. 1, 2, and 3 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of being injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion. Thus, the Plaintiff’s application for refugee recognition is legitimate.
① Even in consideration of the specificity of a refugee recognition case, there is no objective evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was assaulted by members of the high-speed village National Assembly, their supporters, etc. other than the Plaintiff’s statement.
② On September 6, 2011, the Plaintiff.