1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 8, 2011, the Plaintiff entered Korea on October 8, 201, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on November 4, 2011.

The defendant, on November 1, 2013, promulgated with sufficient grounds for persecution (the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)

) On the ground that Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist (hereinafter “instant disposition”), a disposition for non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 19, 2013, but the said objection was dismissed on April 11, 2014.

[Based on the recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff is a new sagbo's origin.

The door to which the Plaintiff belongs is a question of the short of the Egrative community of Egrative B (Ob).

If the shortage of the above B community is caused, the awareness that the female should be replaced with the expulsion, which is contrary to the Plaintiff’s religious faith.

In around 2008, the father of the plaintiff died and the plaintiff has a duty of care for the status of the above deficient site. If the plaintiff refuses to do so, he/she would be forced to pressure from the members of the community to which the plaintiff belongs.

On December 2008, the Plaintiff left Israel on and around December 2008. After having been recognized as a refugee from Israel, the Plaintiff was considered to have resided in Israel for about one year and eight months, and the situation in Israel was improved. On October 2010, the Plaintiff still returned to Isra, but the threat to the Plaintiff continues to exist, and thus, entered the Republic of Korea.

As such, there exists a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be detrimental to persecution on the grounds of religion.