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

A. On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff of Vietnam’s nationality entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employee visa (E-9-1) and stayed in excess of February 26, 2015, which is the expiry date of his/her stay, and filed an application for refugee with the Defendant on September 1, 2015.

B. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee non-recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no “a well-founded fear that it would be detrimental to the State,” which is a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” which is a requirement of refugee status.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged organized violence began to enter a restaurant operated by the Plaintiff’s parents in Vietnam and to threaten against the Plaintiff’s demand for money and valuables, and the Plaintiff’s return to Vietnam is likely to be imminent. Thus, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff’s status as a refugee is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff may be deemed to abuse the refugee recognition system for the purpose of extending the period of stay, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered a non-professional worker even after the period of stay expires and applied for refugee status.

In addition, the plaintiff's assertion that it is threatened with the organized violence of Vietnam seems to be able to solve the problem by requesting the protection of its government. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as a ground for refugee status.

Ultimately, there is no illegality in the disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.