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 October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with visa exemption (B-1) status on October 20, 2017, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on November 7, 2017.

B. On December 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 9, 2018, but the objection was dismissed on February 14, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the grounds for applying for refugee status do not specifically appear in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is written in the complaint to the effect that the application for refugee status is filed on the same grounds as the Plaintiff alleged in the procedures for refugee status screening, the Plaintiff’s assertion was arranged based on the Plaintiff’s statement at the time of the Plaintiff’

The plaintiff's reference constructed a house (hereinafter "the house of this case") along with the plaintiff's third village. After the plaintiff's death, the plaintiff demanded the plaintiff's third village to return the plaintiff's share in the house of this case.

However, on September 13, 2017 or around September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff refused this, and threatened the Plaintiff to send four persons to the court so that the Plaintiff may not file a lawsuit claiming the return of the Plaintiff’s shares in the instant housing to the court.

Therefore, there is a well-founded fear that when the plaintiff returns to Morocco as above, it would be prejudicial to the plaintiff's three villages.