1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. Around July 2007, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of Vietnam, entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E-9) visa and stayed in excess of May 2, 2012, the expiration date of his/her stay, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on September 1, 2015.

B. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear, which is a requirement for refugee status, under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea and revised the plan from the Republic of Korea to the Giology. In case of returning to Vietnam, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status on the ground that he could be subject to gambling or assault from the Bietnam’s Buddhist organization or the Fietology on the ground of the opening of the plan. Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize refugee status on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The assertion that the possibility of persecution is likely to occur in the event of returning to Vietnam due to a judgment religious species is merely a subjective trend, and it is difficult to view that the allegation constitutes a well-founded fear of persecution due to lack of evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the fact that the application was filed in the instant case while illegally staying in excess of the period of stay as seen earlier for a considerable period of time, it is deemed that the instant refugee application was for the purpose of extending the period of stay, and thus, constitutes abuse of the refugee recognition

In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was “a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion,” and thus, the Plaintiff is a refugee.