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

On December 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that it would be prejudicial to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee Protocol”).

The Plaintiff received a notice of decision on non-recognition of refugee status on January 5, 2017, and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 20, 2017, but was dismissed on the same ground as of April 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was threatened by the phone call from M Qua (Muta Quama Move Management, Uniform Korean National Campaign Party) and Pakistan (TP) as the party members of the NP (NP).

On February 17, 2014, there was violence from members of QM.

The instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, foreigners who, owing to well-founded fear of being injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, are unable to be protected of the country of nationality or who does not want to be protected of the country of nationality due to such fear, or who, owing to such fear, could not return to or does not want to return to the country in which he had resided before entering the Republic of Korea.