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

A. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “Russia”), and applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant on October 10, 2016.

B. On October 19, 2017, 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 November 24, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on September 3, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was born in and living at the KIKOStan, and then moved to Russia in around 2010, and acquired the Russian nationality around 2014. The Plaintiff continued to own five-story buildings in KIKOStan even after Russia moved to Russia.

However, the Korean nationals of the Dazistististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististist

There is a well-founded fear that if the Plaintiff returned to Russia, it would be detrimental to persecution for the above reasons.

B. According to the relevant relevant laws and regulations, in order for a refugee applicant to be recognized as a refugee, it should be deemed that the booming of the refugee applicant as the subject of his/her fear is based on his/her “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”

However, the plaintiff asserts.