2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On May 10, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that it would be prejudicial to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee Protocol”).

The Plaintiff received a notice of decision on the refusal of refugee status on May 19, 2016 and raised an objection to the Minister of Justice on June 17, 2016, but was dismissed on the same ground as of February 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff ought to be recognized as a refugee on the grounds of family-combined principle depending on the Plaintiff’s father’s father.

B. In addition to the above evidence and the statement in No. 3 as mentioned above, the following facts may be acknowledged.

B, the Plaintiff’s father, “The Rasscen of the Republic of Rascistan, who was the Russcen, moved to Russcenia on August 2010, and acquired Russcin nationality on 2011. However, Russcins, inasmuch as Russcins do not refuse other people, their children were discriminated against in school. Due to Russcinscinscinscins, their application for refugee status was filed with the Defendant on August 19, 2016, but the Defendant was subject to the disposition of non-recognition of refugee status.”

However, the contents of the plaintiff's additional discrimination under the Refugee Act.