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

A. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 2, 2015, while entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status and staying there.

B. On November 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Plaintiff does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with this, filed an objection with the competent Minister of Justice, but rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application on April 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was the head of the village, but the father was killed by the other party’s family, and the other party’s family was threatened by assaulting the Plaintiff to prevent the Plaintiff from succeeding his/her family head’s status. While escaping from the South Africa to the South Africa that caused damage, the Plaintiff was exposed to a threat by receiving the alien’s hate attack (No. 5).

Therefore, if the plaintiff returned to the Republic of Ghana or South Africa, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful despite high possibility of persecution due to the above circumstances.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the above facts of recognition and the purport of the evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has sufficiently-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1 The subject threatening the plaintiff is a relative question that intends to account for village ties, and is a threat to his/her race, religion, and .