1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is well-known.
A foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea"), who entered the Republic of Korea on July 2, 2015, with the status of stay C-3 (short-term Visit).
B. On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but the Defendant, on February 27, 2017, issued a disposition on recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “profuges with sufficient grounds for fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.
C. On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as October 11, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion is well-known.
From this point of view, the same-sexist driver was a driver of the same-sexd stable supervisor, and therefore, the plaintiff also used violence, such as misunderstanding that the plaintiff is a same-sexd person, leaving the plaintiff's vehicle with the same-sexd person, criticism, etc.
The plaintiff driving a motor vehicle that caused the violence of the above villagers, thereby causing two persons to escape, and the plaintiff got double due to the instant case.
There is a wide range of discrimination and gambling against same-sexs.
The plaintiff is no longer able to lead a basic life, such as obtaining jobs.
Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status is unlawful.