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

A. On December 15, 2017, the Plaintiff entered Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter “ASEAN”), and applied for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on December 29, 2017, by entering Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status.

B. On December 26, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 11, 2019, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on July 30, 2019.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was the president of the traditional village religion that sublime B in Naria.

Upon the plaintiff's death, the plaintiff's village and relatives forced the plaintiff to be the president after following the plaintiff's death.

The plaintiff rejected the plaintiff as a senior to a parasin, and the plaintiff's village and his relatives have threatened the plaintiff to conceal and kill the plaintiff in the village on the ground that the plaintiff refused to hold the president.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was taken on a different premise, was unlawful, even though the Plaintiff was stuffed for religious reasons in Austria.

B. (1) Determination 1) The fact that an applicant for refugee status has “abruptly-founded fear” on the grounds of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion” ought to be attested by the refugee applicant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378, Apr. 25, 2013). In this context, the refugee applicant is obliged to prove the existence of “ab