1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are foreigners of Mongolian nationality, and Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff1”) is the mother of Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”).

C, who is the husband of Plaintiff 1 and the father of Plaintiff 2, submitted the instant complaint with the Plaintiffs, but was absent on the first or third date for pleading even after being notified of lawful date, and the Defendant’s litigation performer was present on each date for pleading but did not state his opinion (as at the third date for pleading, only C).

B. On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff 1 entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis, and obtained permission for change of sojourn status as a general training (D-4) status on June 12, 2015. Plaintiff 2 entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on December 2, 2015, and obtained permission for change of sojourn status as an accompanying (F-3) status on December 21, 2015. On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff 1 applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant.

C. On July 15, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) against the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that would be persecution” as 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.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 26, 2019, but the Minister of Justice dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ objections on August 20, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Plaintiff 1’s assertion entered Mongolia in and around 2012, and for this reason, Plaintiff 1, “E”, the opposing force of the Plaintiff 1, threatened the Plaintiff 1’s house by finding the Plaintiff 1’s house, putting his behavior, and assaulting the Plaintiff 1. However, the government of its country.