1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of South Africa.

B. On March 15, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fears that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 15, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on December 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was born in the Republic of Ghana in 1972 (hereinafter “A”), but the Plaintiff moved to the Republic of South Africa in 1998 (hereinafter “the Republic of South Africa”), acquired the Republic of South Africa in 2000, and lived in the Republic of South Africa by marriage with the wife of South Africa.

However, the Plaintiff became a victim of “foreign-suspected crime” in the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the Plaintiff was from Ghana.

As seen above, since the Plaintiff acquired the Republic of Korea in 2000, the term “foreign suspected crime” referred to by the Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the crime of hate against those who remaining in a foreign country and have acquired the Republic of Korea after the fact that they had acquired the Republic of Korea.

In the judgment below, a foreign suspected crime is used in the same sense as the plaintiff used.

In other words, around April 2015, about 10 persons remaining in South Korea entered the Plaintiff’s house and took property, and about 5 persons remaining in April 17, 2016 intruded the Plaintiff’s house, thereby saving the Plaintiff and threatening the Plaintiff to kill the Plaintiff. In both cases, the perpetrator said that the Plaintiff returned to the place where the Plaintiff died.