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

On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant on September 19, 2014 while entering and staying in the Republic of Korea as a group tourism visa (C-9 and the period of sojourn 30 days) as a national of the Republic of Yemen (hereinafter referred to as “mentor”).

On September 23, 2014, 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 that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 2, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as July 1, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on September 14, 2015.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, the Plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the instant disposition as indicated in Gap evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-2, and Nos. 4, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was lawful, and the Plaintiff moved to Swanna in the area of Domen Domena or Water.

However, around May 2014, the shortage of Alphamati, which owns adjacent land to the farmland in the Bura region owned by the Plaintiff, caused the death of the Plaintiff’s parents and siblings, due to the habitation of the Plaintiff’s family in order to cut off the Plaintiff’s land.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff would be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in the case that the plaintiff returned to mentmen.

Judgment

In addition to the above-mentioned facts, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding the entry of No. 3 in the above-mentioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate as there is

The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff constitute a conflict or an individual dispute among the lack of land surrounding the land.