1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. During the process of the disposition, the following facts are: (a) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognizing that there is no sufficient ground for recognizing refugee non-recognition on February 20, 2017, the date of the application for refugee status exemption (B-1) on November 23, 2016, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea of the Kingdom of Marocco of the Plaintiff’s Nationality; (b) the date of the application for refugee status exemption (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (c) there is no ground for recognizing that there is no sufficient ground for recognizing that he/she would be detrimental to persecution; (d) Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a national of the Kingdom of Morocco (hereinafter “Morocco”).

The plaintiff is operating a store to sell women's clothes in Morocco.

The robbery was conducted and reported to the police.

Accordingly, the robbery threatened the death of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has left Morocco in the Republic of Korea.

As such, since the Plaintiff’s return to Morocco is likely to be detrimental to gambling, the Plaintiff ought to be recognized as a refugee.

B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines a refugee as “a foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected from the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or who, due to such fear, does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea, or who is a state of nationality and who does not want to return.

In this case, the threat of the Plaintiff’s return to the instant case is merely a general illegal act by a private person, and it is difficult to view that the threat of the Plaintiff’s return to the instant case constitutes “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion” as the grounds for recognition of refugee under the Refugee Act.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing it is without merit to further examine it.

3...