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 May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 22, 2016, while entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on May 3, 2016.

B. On September 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” stipulated as the requirements for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 10, 2016, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on April 21, 2017.

[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 was threatened by the said organization on the ground that the Plaintiff was willing to join an organization of Bafra Mafra, pursuing the independence of Bafra in its home country and was rejected by the organization of Bafra peo.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case 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 Austria.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the above facts of recognition and the purport of the evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1) The Plaintiff asserted that it was threatened by an organization called a non-flap, but the name of the organization is inaccurate and that it was threatened by the organization is only one time. 2)