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

② On November 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not a person to whom the Refugee Act and the Refugee Convention apply” (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”).

③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on September 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion has fleded to the Republic of Korea with intimidation that the husband living together would be subject to life and death.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, “persecution” which serves as the requirement for recognition of refugee status should be limited to “a race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”

The Plaintiff’s assertion that “bold violence of husband,” by itself, is not based on “a race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion,” which is the cause of persecution that serves as a requirement for recognition of refugee status.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.