1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 31, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea and stayed in non-professional employment (E-9) as a foreigner with the nationality of the Democratic Republic of the Lao (hereinafter “NE”) and applied for refugee status against the Defendant on February 8, 2012 immediately before the expiration date of his sojourn period ( February 9, 2012).

The Defendant, on November 21, 2013, “a well-founded fear of persecution” (amended by the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)

) On the ground that Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist (hereinafter “instant disposition”), a disposition for non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 30, 2013, but the foregoing objection was dismissed on June 27, 2014, and the foregoing decision of dismissal was served on the Plaintiff on July 21, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings is legitimate. The Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea for two months of December 8, 2008.

At the time when the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea, the organization of Martha and the anti-military organization called “ditha” with the name of “Mithi Sinthi” used the Plaintiff’s membership or donation.

The plaintiff granted a certain amount of money to them at the time and returned them. After the plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea, the above Madia organization continues to request money to the plaintiff's family members and the plaintiff's family members escape.

When the plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea, he/she would be required to receive monetary demand from the Madia organization, and ultimately, he/she will be threatened with life.

Even though the Plaintiff is a refugee, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee, so the instant disposition is unlawful.

Attached hereto to the relevant statutes.