1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on July 28, 2017 while entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on June 21, 2017.

B. On August 22, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 1, 2017, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on March 21, 2018.

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

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff succeeded to the father’s share in the land jointly owned by his father and Sam-do as his father died in his home country. However, the Plaintiff refused the foregoing land and sent a person, thereby making efforts to rescue and kill the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff would be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Kenya.

B. In order to be recognized as a refugee, in addition to the requirement that the applicant for refugee status has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country, the applicant has been made on the ground of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The Plaintiff’s ground for gambling that the Plaintiff asserts is “a threat from a third village on the ground that the Plaintiff intended to use and benefit from the third village and the land jointly owned.”