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 June 7, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on June 17, 2014 while entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visa (C-3) on June 7, 2014.

B. On February 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition that does not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently based fear that she would be injured” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 15, 2016, but rendered a final decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application on October 27, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to exchange money with money from all members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members of the group of members.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in the case that the plaintiff returned to Cotdar.

B. In order to be recognized as a refugee, in addition to the requirement that the applicant for refugee status has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country, the applicant has been made on the ground of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The Plaintiff’s ground for gambling is that “the Plaintiff’s ground for gambling is under threat of not exchanging gold to customers on bail operated by the Plaintiff, unlike the promise.”