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

A. On July 14, 2009, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (hereinafter “Vetnam”), who is a foreigner of the Republic of Vietnam, entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E91) sojourn status and stayed after November 20, 2013, the expiry period of his/her stay, and filed an application for refugee with the Defendant on March 11, 2016.

B. On June 24, 2016, 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 under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” which is a requirement for refugee status.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion was changed from the Bridge to the Bridge, and on this ground, the Bridge of Vietnam made intimidation and threat to the plaintiff. Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not recognize it on a different premise is unlawful even though there is a concern that the plaintiff might be subject to gambling when returning to the Republic of Korea through Vietnam.

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

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has “a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion,” even if all evidence and arguments submitted by the Plaintiff were considered, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had opened the interview, in light of the fact that the interview made a false statement as to the basic question about the subject matter of sexual intercourse, the Plaintiff’s statement has no credibility.

(2) In addition, the statement about gambling within the country of origin is also vague.