1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On April 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 18, 2014 while entering the Republic of Canada for a short-term visit visa (C-3 and 30 days of stay) and staying there.

On February 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on February 16, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as July 1, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap's No. 1 through 4, Eul's No. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), and the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is a situation in which the plaintiff's arrest warrant against the plaintiff was issued to the prison while he/she embezzled company's official money from a lending company in Kamera who worked as an accountant.

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 case the plaintiff returned to Kamera.

Judgment

In addition to the above-mentioned facts, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances, which can be seen when adding the respective descriptions of No. 5-1, No. 2, and No. 4 to the above-mentioned facts, and the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The reason that the plaintiff asserts is an individual crime or a private dispute, and thus, it is necessary to solve it by the Korean judicial system.