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

On June 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that it would be prejudicial to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee Protocol”).

On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received a notice of decision on non-recognition of refugee status and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 27, 2016, but was dismissed on the same ground as on December 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Republic of South Africa was a national of the Republic of South Africa with the Republic of South Africa, and the Republic of South Africa had been subjected to multiple times in the Republic of South Africa, and applied for refugee status.

The instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, foreigners who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, are unable or do not want the protection of the country of nationality, or who, owing to such fear, cannot return to, or does not want to return to, a country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea, shall be recognized as a refugee, and a stateless foreigner must be recognized as a refugee.