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 June 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on September 11, 2012, which was subsequent to the expiration of the period of stay ( July 6, 2012), when entering the Republic of the Vietnam War (C-3) and staying in the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn on a short-term basis.

B. On May 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was a slock slock slock, but around around 2005, the Plaintiff slocked into a Tol. The Plaintiff’s slock believed most traditional religions, and there was a cooling price for other religious believers, such as a character, etc.

The father of the plaintiff was the president of the traditional religion, which was the wharf, and the father was forced to succeed to the status of the president when his father died.

As the Plaintiff did not enter the Republic of Korea, he was required to hear the father’s death consciousness and immediately return to the Vietnam War to succeed to the status of president.

However, the Plaintiff rejected the recognition of the above traditional religion because it did not comply with the religious faith.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a refugee who is in danger of being threatened with life and body for religious reasons, such as murdering on the ground of refusal to inherit at the time of returning home.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012); Articles 2 subparag. 3 and 76-2(1), and 76-2(1).