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 May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 8, 2016 while entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status and staying there on a short-term basis.

B. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 2, 2016, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on February 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to threaten the Plaintiff to kill the Plaintiff in order to own land of remaining inherited property while the father of the Plaintiff died.

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 would be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Austria.

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 reason for the persecution alleged by the Plaintiff is that “the Plaintiff’s large abandoned land threatens the Plaintiff to take away the Plaintiff’s inherited property.” Even if all of the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged, it is merely a matter to be resolved by using the judicial system of its home country due to a private threat.