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

A. On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on February 16, 2016, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on February 24, 2016.

B. On March 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff was notified of the instant disposition on March 24, 2016, and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 15, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on December 22, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a threat of murdering by being aware of his/her family members who want to assault female and female life in the country of nationality.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite high possibility that the plaintiff would be subject to gambling when he returns to the country of nationality is illegal.

B. The term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.

(Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged, the threat of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the case on the ground of “human race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”