beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s nationality in the course of the disposition means the fact that there is no dispute that there is no basis for recognizing the decision to dismiss the decision of the decision of the Supreme Court on January 14, 2016 of the filing date of the objection, the Gap evidence No. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and 2 as of June 18, 2017 as of the date of the application for refugee status recognition (C-3) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on a short-term stay visit (C-3) on June 17, 2013 of the date of entry of the Islamic Republic of Islamic Republic of Korea, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as of January 16, 2014 as of the date of the application for refugee status recognition:
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a person of nationality of the Islamic Republic of Islamic (hereinafter “A”).
The plaintiff was Muslim, but it became known to the family and police in Eul.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even if the plaintiff's return to Eul is highly likely to be detrimental to gambling for religious reasons.
B. Determination 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines refugee status as “a foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion, or who is a stateless foreigner who is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea due to such fear.” In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the aforementioned evidence, evidence No. 4, No. 3, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 3, witness B’s testimony, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to deem that there is “a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.”