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 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) visa on November 9, 2015, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on November 19, 2015.

B. On November 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the said objection was dismissed on June 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was that his father inherited land as of May 2008, and the Plaintiff’s third village threatened the Plaintiff by demanding the purchase of inherited land from May 2009. On July 4, 2015, the Plaintiff kills the Plaintiff’s mother and the Plaintiff’s mother by an tactical method, such as setting the Plaintiff’s husband’s house at the Plaintiff’s house.

In the event that the Plaintiff returned to his home country, even though there was a risk of persecution from the Samnam village for the foregoing reasons, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

B. In order to be recognized as a refugee, in addition to the requirement that the applicant for refugee status has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country, the applicant has been made on the ground of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The grounds for stuffing alleged by the Plaintiff are “a threat from the third village which seeks to deduct an inherited property.” Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized, this is a private dispute concerning inherited property, which is the subject of the Plaintiff’s home country.