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 November 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Canada as a foreigner of his/her nationality (hereinafter “Canadian”), and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on December 1, 2014, by entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit status.

B. On February 2, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently reasonable fears that would be prejudicial to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized as the requirement of refugee status.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on February 24, 2016, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on July 18, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was derived from the area in which the Republic of Korea uses English in Canada (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Branch for convenience"). The plaintiff's parent was a member of the organization B (B; hereinafter referred to as "B"), which claimed the separation independence of the South Branch. The plaintiff was actively engaged in activities in around 2007, and was arrested by the police while carrying out an independent demonstration for supporting the division of the South Branch area in Canada. On November 10, 2012, a detention warrant was issued to the plaintiff as a false criminal charge, which is an attempt to kill the President in Canada.

On the other hand, the father of the plaintiff was missing in around 2002, and the mother was arrested by the police and presumed to have died from fire around 2007. Such disappearance and death of the parent is clear that the parent's act of the Kamera government is all, and even though it is unclear whether the plaintiff's husband is in a legal marital relationship with the plaintiff C, the husband is the husband, but it is stated as the husband as

Do. B.