1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 9, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on January 30, 2013, which is the day immediately preceding the expiration of the status of stay (C-31 January 2013), after entering the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (Federaria, hereinafter referred to as “ASEAN”).

On March 24, 2014, the Defendant’s refusal to recognize refugee status (see Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees; Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees); and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees) cannot be seen as having a well-founded fear for the Plaintiff to be persecution.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 14, 2014, but was dismissed on December 16, 2014. [The grounds for recognition] written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), and the overall purport of the instant disposition is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition was an objection from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea in Ediria, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea,

Since 2005, the Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff to succeed to a private position, but the Plaintiff refused to do so on the grounds of the doubt about the culture of telecommunication from 2007, the Plaintiff continued to threaten “the Plaintiff’s death” to the horses “the Plaintiff died,” and the Plaintiff was saluted as an alcoholic beverage, and the Plaintiff used the improvement and the “the Plaintiff’s death.”

The plaintiff's reference is finding the plaintiff in order to kill the plaintiff as a product and take another person as a successor.

As such, even though there is a risk that the plaintiff would be injured on the ground of religion when he returns to ASEAN, the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee, and the disposition of this case is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

recognized.