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

A. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff, who is a foreigner of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (hereinafter “Vetnam”), filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on January 9, 2017, when entering the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment status.

B. On February 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution,” 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. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion of the non-party, was threatened with the members of the Vietnam, and went against the Republic of Korea. Thus, there is sufficient concern about the possibility of gambling when returning to Vietnam, and it is a reasonable fear. However, the disposition of this case, which did not recognize it on a different premise, is unlawful.

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

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has “a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion,” even if all evidence and arguments submitted by the Plaintiff were considered, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s statement concerning concerns over stuffing in the interview and investigation has no specification, and that it is very vague and persuasive, the Plaintiff’s statement has no credibility.

② In addition, Park Jae-gu alleged by the Plaintiff is protected by the Vietnam judicial authority due to a dispute between private individuals.