1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 17, 2014, when he/she entered and stayed in the Republic of Korea as a tourism visa and visa (B-2, and period of stay 30 days) on June 7, 2014.

On June 17, 2015, 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 July 6, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as September 24, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2015.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s father’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Nos. 1 through 1, 2, and 4, was purchased on Apr. 2, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the instant disposition was lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the ownership of the land with the ownership of the land and the Plaintiff’s death

Since then, B threatens the plaintiff to be multiple.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility of gambling is high in the case that the plaintiff returned to mentmen.

Judgment

The grounds for the application for refugee status asserted by the Plaintiff are private relationships or personal criminal crimes, and it is a matter that must be resolved by the mentmen judicial system, and it does not constitute a ground for recognition of refugee status under the Refugee Act in itself.

In addition, each statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 5 is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution as prescribed by the Refugee Act even if considering the purport of the entire argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.