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

On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status to the Defendant on January 26, 2015 while entering the Republic of Ghana (hereinafter referred to as “A”) with a short-term visit visa (C-3) and staying there.

On October 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 11, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on March 23, 2016.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, who was not able to assert the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as indicated in Gap’s Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s Nos. 1 and 2, demanded that the Plaintiff succeed to the Plaintiff’s father’s status after death of August 13, 2013. The Plaintiff refused this, thereby having assaulted the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Ghana.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be seen when adding the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 5-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful as there is no other evidence to acknowledge

In addition to the fact that the plaintiff was involved in any contingent assault from some villages immediately after the plaintiff made a statement that he/she refused to succeed to the status of the deficient site, there is no additional threat or persecution from the village residents due to the refusal to succeed to the status of the deficient site.

Plaintiff

Even based on the assertion, the Plaintiff.