1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In the course of the disposition, the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s non-professional employment (E-9) without status of stay on May 17, 2005 (E-9) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of the date of the application for refugee status recognition on February 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition of the decision of rejection on April 22, 2016 as of the date of the application for objection that there is no sufficient ground for recognition of refugee status status refusal: (c) the facts that there is no ground for recognition of the decision of rejection as of June 8, 2017 of the date of the decision of June 22, 2016; (d) Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a national of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter “the Philippines”).

On December 30, 2004, the plaintiff was admitted from NPA (New Pople) which is an anti-government organization, but rejected it.

On January 1, 2005, the NPA side threatened the Plaintiff and its family members to die.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in the Republic of Korea since he left the Philippines.

As such, the Plaintiff should be recognized as a refugee inasmuch as it is likely to be stuffed from the side of the NPA if he/she returns to the Philippines.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines refugee status as “a foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion, or a foreigner who is not able to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea due to such fear.” 2) The aforementioned evidence and the statement in the evidence No. 3 reveal the following circumstances that can be known by adding the whole arguments to the purport of the pleading in addition to the statement in the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff is “a well-founded fear of being injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.”