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 February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) status on a short-term visit (C-3), and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 7, 2017.

B. On July 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status on the ground that the grounds for applying for recognition of refugee status as alleged by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as a requirement for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 24, 2018, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on February 14, 2019.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a person who newly flagbo, and was residing in the Nagro Guro-gu (Engu).

On November 2016, the Plaintiff was able to grow down with his/her family members, and was able to grow down with a grass pool, a citizen.

The plaintiff's father died due to this behavior, and the plaintiff's mother's mother's life and death could not be grasped.

When the plaintiff returned to Austria, it is inevitable to be exposed to the threat of the gold pool, so life is in danger.

The Plaintiff’s aforementioned situation constitutes a well-founded fear that there is sufficient ground to believe that he/she may be injured on the ground that he/she is a member of a religion or a specific social group, and the Plaintiff does not want to be protected from the country of nationality.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.