1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of South Africa on May 22, 2013 and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on June 3, 2013, after the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea.

B. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that 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.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 10, 201, but the said objection was dismissed on December 16, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion originally became a Korean national from the Republic of Ghana (hereinafter “A”), and subsequently became a Korean national after having married to the Republic of Ghana (hereinafter “A”), and became a Korean national.

The plaintiff's wife was placed in one name prior to marriage with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was done with the consent of her wife in accordance with the Ghana's tradition and with the consent of her wife.

Since then, on February 2013, she became aware of the fact that she received sheshesheshesheshesheshes while she takes a bath with the Plaintiff’s sheshesheshesheshes, and she threatened the Plaintiff, such as making a intimidation call to the Plaintiff, and finding the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s home, on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was from A or C, took a sheshes sheshes at her own mind.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s return to the Republic of Korea is likely to be harmful for the said reason.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determinations Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are the purport of the entire pleadings.