1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on October 21, 2013 while entering and staying in the Republic of Korea for short-term visit visa (C-3 and 200 days of stay) as an alien of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter referred to as "ASEAN").

On August 25, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny 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 that would be subject to 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 September 11, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on July 1, 2015.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition indicated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, is a cartol person from Ebonyi of Ebronyi, and operated a pesticide product sales store from around 2000 to Ninna.

However, around 2012, there was a bomb terrorism in the U.S., and the plaintiff's wife and children were destroyed and the house were missing.

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.

Judgment

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 known when adding the respective descriptions and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including each number) to the above facts of recognition, and the instant disposition by the Defendant is lawful since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion on family matters and circumstances at the time of terrorism is not consistent, but is with the wife.