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 July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) status on July 9, 2012, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 2, 2012.

B. On March 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject 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.

C. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 22, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on April 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is an leyo's attitude located in the southwest of Austria, and since 1990 to 191, the plaintiff moved from 199 to frier's view.

In the resettlement area, members of Boko were residing in adjoining areas. However, the Plaintiff had a meeting of the members with neighbors, and Bokdo, threatening the Plaintiff to leave the village.

On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the threat to the police, and Boco Ban died of the Plaintiff’s satur, and his female was also killed after rape.

Since then, the Plaintiff fled to Lags.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff reported to the police the fact that the Plaintiff was threatened with Boco’s threat from Boco’s inundation as a parasido, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

(b).