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.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The gist of the grounds for appeal argues that: (a) in light of the internationally accepted standard of judgment, the Plaintiff cannot be determined to have no possibility of gambling when returning to Korea solely on the ground that he/she left Korea through his/her own airport without any problem; (b) in the case of the Plaintiff, since the subject of gambling is a country, it cannot be considered as an alternative domestic flight; and (c) as long as the refugee law grants re-application for refugee due to the same reason, the circumstance in which the Plaintiff applied for refugee status for the same reason and received a final decision that the court lost should not be a ground for recognition of refugee status.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8 through 10, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 (including branch numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has “a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion,” even if all of the allegations and all of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff were considered, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.

1) Even based on the Plaintiff’s statement, the Plaintiff was present at the demonstration demanding the leave of the President of C in 2008, and was detained for two weeks, and was detained and escaped, and did not enter a specific organization or engage in particular activities until leaving the Kamera. In light of the Plaintiff’s activities, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on May 20, 201 without any restriction. In light of the Plaintiff’s activities, it is not deemed that the Plaintiff was born at the time of departure or that the Kamera did not have impliedly left the Republic of Korea. (ii) At around 2017 to 2018 between the English and Chinese separated owners of the Kamera and the English separated owners of the Kamera, the Kamera book dealt with the Kamera.