Attorney Jeon Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

On April 25, 2018, the defendant revoked the disposition of non-recognition of refugee status against the plaintiff on April 25, 2018.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasons for this case are as follows: ① “Plaintiff” in Section 8 of the judgment of the first instance court in Section 18 is dismissed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, ② add “after being known” to the right side of “after being known” in Section 6 of Section 10. ③ In Section 8 of Section 10, “The location or name of the wife can be described in Section 11,” and the second is written differently in Section 8 of the judgment of the first instance, and the second is somewhat different in the year in which the wife was sent back to the new wife. However, this is highly likely to cause memory due to an interpretation or translation or time-based error,” and the judgment of the first instance court is not consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and the judgment of the first instance court which admitted the refugee status from the first instance court and the first instance court's argument that the refugee status was submitted is not different from the first instance court's assertion.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Young-young

Judges Sung-ju