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 October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on October 20, 2015, while entering the Republic of Ghana (hereinafter “A”) and staying in the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on October 8, 2015.

B. On July 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 26, 2016, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on February 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is Muslim origin, and both parents, siblings, and family members are Muslim, and the Plaintiff was forced to repent from his family members to Muslim, and was subject to violence and threatened with knife.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Ghana.

B. In order to be recognized as a refugee, in addition to the requirement that the applicant for refugee status has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country, the applicant has been made on the ground of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The reason for the persecution alleged by the Plaintiff is that “the Plaintiff is threatened by the Plaintiff’s family member who believed Islamic intercourse on the ground that the Plaintiff was married,” and it is private even if all of the Plaintiff’s arguments are acknowledged.