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

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

On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 11, 2016, but was dismissed on December 22, 2016.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the regional black robbery took away goods and murdered the Plaintiff’s three villages while working in the South Africa Republic with the nationality of the Republic of South Africa.

When the plaintiff reported this to the police, he is threatened with the tin-propris.

The instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, foreigners who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, are unable or do not want the protection of the country of nationality, or who, owing to such fear, cannot return to, or do not want to return to, the country of nationality that had resided in the Republic of Korea before entering the Republic of Korea, should be recognized as a refugee, and the requirements for recognition of a refugee are satisfied.