1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 29, 2005, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (hereinafter “Vetnam”), entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E-9) visa, and entered the Republic of Korea on March 3, 2011, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on September 9, 2015.

B. On October 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be detrimental to persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 19, 2015, but was dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he entered the Republic of Korea, and the family members in Vietnam cannot return to Vietnam because they refuse to do so with respect to the fact that he/she moved from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that was not recognized as a refugee is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff may be deemed to abuse the refugee recognition system for the purpose of extending the period of stay in light of the fact that he applied for refugee status while illegally staying in Korea for a long time after entering the status as industrial trainee even after the expiration of the period of stay. The Plaintiff’s ground for refugee application that the Plaintiff cannot return to Vietnam because his family members, who were married from his religion to his religion, do not refuse to return to Vietnam is difficult, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff is a refugee.