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 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on the ground that he/she is a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter “ASEAN”).

B. On February 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was a person with a sufficient well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be injured by gambling.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 11, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on October 11, 2017.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s father’s assertion beliefed the traditional religion of Ageia (hereinafter “traditional religion”) and died on July 10, 2013.

After that, the residents of the village in B demanded the plaintiff to succeed to the president position.

However, the plaintiff refused the above demand on the ground that the performance of the president's duties based on traditional religion is contrary to the Monoposism that the plaintiff believed.

In this process, the residents of the village B threatened the plaintiff to murder on the ground that the plaintiff refused to succeed to the president's position, and the plaintiff's remaining birth was also killed during that process.

If the plaintiff returned to Zaria, he/she can be stuffed by the village residents for the above religious reasons, so the plaintiff should be recognized as a refugee.

B. A foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status 1 must prove that there is “a sufficient well-founded fear of fear” that constitutes a requirement for recognition of refugee status.

In this case, the foreigner cannot be required to prove the whole facts of the assertion based on objective evidence, in view of the special circumstances of the foreigner.