1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment on the following grounds for appeal. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Plaintiff, who is a shotist of the gist of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, was killed by the Plaintiff, who was a leader of B, and was asked to succeed to the status from the members of B, and was assaulted by the said members, and became a major figure in this end.

The plaintiff's mother was killed from the above members around March 2017.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful even though the Plaintiff constitutes a refugee.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in the statement Nos. 3 through 5 of the judgment, the evidence and assertion presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.

1) The Plaintiff asserts in the grounds of appeal that the Plaintiff’s mother was killed from the members of B. However, at the time of refugee interview, the Plaintiff’s mother stated that her mother was dnicking after her mother left the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s statement as to the main part is inconsistent with that of the Plaintiff’s statement. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that her mother was dnicking from the members of B, and that her mother was dnicking, but it is insufficient to recognize that the upper part of the Plaintiff’s ma was caused by the Plaintiff’s assault by the members of B around January 5, 201.

3) On April 2, 2014, prior to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff sought the revocation of the said disposition against the Defendant to the Seoul Administrative Court, upon receiving a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status from the Seoul Immigration Office, prior to the change.