1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. On January 21, 2016, the key issue of the instant case: (a) the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on January 21, 2016; (b) on January 28, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as having a reason for “not being able to be protected by the country of nationality due to a well-founded fear of being recognized as having a sufficient reason to believe that he/she could be injured.”

The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff is a refugee under Article 2 (1) of the Refugee Act.

(b) “Refugee” in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act of the court of first instance refers to a foreigner who, owing to a well-founded fear to recognize that he/she is likely to be detrimental on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is unable to obtain protection of his/her country of nationality or who does not want to receive such protection, or a national who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering

The term "" is defined as ".

2. The following circumstances revealed by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 through 4, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff engaged in job-seeking activities after entry; (ii) the Plaintiff applied for refugee status immediately before the expiration of the period of sojourn; (iii) there is no objective data supporting the Plaintiff’s statement; and (iv) the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have engaged in an act to live in a bNP because it has not joined the bNP; (iv) the Plaintiff visited fright, but did not have any special threat; and (v) the Plaintiff was still residing in a high-speed village including his/her parents and wife; and (v) the Plaintiff appears to be entitled to protection in accordance with the judicial procedures in its home country.