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

On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term visit on October 17, 2016, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 24, 2016.

On December 22, 2016, 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 dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 25, 2017, but the said objection was dismissed on April 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, Eul's Village Nos. 1 through 4, and the summary of the plaintiff's argument of this case is E.I.B. The president of the village No. 2

On the other hand, the father of the plaintiff should succeed to the next president position in case of the trust that the village people received, and the village people requested the father of the plaintiff to become the president around July 2016 and refused to become the president.

After that, in the village, people who believe traditional religion began to die, and the village people believed that the father of the plaintiff's father refused to succeed to the president's position. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff tried to kill the father of the plaintiff and a great baby.

At this time, the plaintiff's father was killed, and the father of the plaintiff escaped. Since the father of the plaintiff escaped, the plaintiff's father should be responsible for the escape, and the plaintiff threatened the plaintiff, such as asking the plaintiff on the ground.

For this reason, the plaintiff's return to his country is highly likely to be harmful to gambling.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is taken.