1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the Republic of Korea’s nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn status, and filed an application for refugee status recognition with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”) on November 21, 2017, after the expiration of the period of stay ( November 15, 2017).

B. On August 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it cannot be recognized as “ sufficiently based fears that would be prejudicial to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 2012, the Plaintiff was threatened with intimidation and kidnapping from the above criminal organization on the ground that the Plaintiff was not aware of all the money requested by the criminal organization in the Philippines, and is threatened with “I will immediately die upon her return to Korea.”

Therefore, there is a high risk of murdering the Plaintiff when returning to the Republic of Korea, and local police cannot expect the assistance of the police due to the relationship with the above criminal organization. Thus, it is obvious that the Plaintiff is subject to "brising", i.e., an act causing serious harm to his/her life, body, etc.

Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff has the right to file an application for humanitarian stay with the Plaintiff under the interpretation of the relevant statutes, such as the preliminary claim for refugee status and the Immigration Control Act, and that the Plaintiff’s application in this case includes the intent to obtain humanitarian stay permission if not recognized as a refugee, and that the Defendant’s disposition in this case includes the passive expression of intent not to permit humanitarian stay.

However, above.