1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In the course of the disposition, the following facts: (a) the status of stay exemption (B-1) on March 16, 2016 of the date of entry into the Republic of Korea of the Kingdom of Morocco (B-1); (b) the date of the application for refugee status recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on March 31, 2016; (b) the date of the application for refugee status recognition; (c) the date of the decision of April 12, 2016; (d) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition of the decision of rejection of the decision of December 22, 2016 as of May 31, 2016; (d) the facts that there is no ground for recognition of the decision of rejection of the decision of December 22, 2016; and (e) the entries

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

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

At the time of residing in Morocco, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the bank at the time of the residence, which was threatened by the bank due to its failure to repay it, and has left the part of the damaged Morocco.

As such, the Plaintiff’s return to Morocco is likely to pose a threat from the bank, and thus, should 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 the instant case, even if the bank threatened the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, it does not constitute grounds for recognition of refugee status as stipulated in the Refugee Act, in which case, a private dispute related to a debt is requested to protect the Plaintiff within the Morocco’s judicial system.

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

3. Conclusion.