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

A. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff, who is a foreigner of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as “ Russia”), entered the Republic of Korea as a sojourn status for visa exemption (five days in the period of stay) and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on March 30, 2016.

B. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee non-recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no “a well-founded fear of persecution,” which is a requirement for refugee status as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff borrowed a large amount of money from Russia. The plaintiff's assertion that he/she was abused and threatened with assault and intimidation that he/she did not repay the money, and thus, there is sufficient concern that he/she would suffer gambling in case of Russia's return to the Republic of Korea, and this is a well-founded fear, but the disposition of this case which did not recognize it on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, namely, the dispute asserted by the Plaintiff is a civil dispute related to monetary claims, and even if the dispute was threatened with such a threat, it may escape from such threat by requesting protection to the Russian judicial authorities. As such, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion,” which is the grounds for recognition of refugee status.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is an error in the disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.