1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea and application for refugee recognition - Nationality - Entry into the Republic of Korea on November 23, 2016 (Status B-1): Application for refugee recognition: April 5, 2017

B. Defendant’s decision on the recognition of refugee status as of October 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”): A’s decision on the recognition of refugee status as of October 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”): The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol (which is grounds for recognition)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is highly likely to be harmful to the plaintiff's return to the country of nationality, since the plaintiff was forced to open species from persons presumed to be Islamic U.S. as Islamic U. S. as Islamic U.S. and was subject to violence.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.

(No. 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status, refers to “any act causing serious infringement or discrimination on essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom,” and the fact that there is a “comfortable fear” subject to such persecution must be attested by a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378 Decided April 25, 2013). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff was subject to assault on the ground of religion.