1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The details of the disposition are the Plaintiff’s nationality.

On March 8, 2015, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea for a short-term stay visit (C-3) refugee status application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on March 12, 2015, the decision of October 17, 2016, which was made on March 12, 2015: The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for rejection of the decision of decision of July 18, 2017 as of the date of application for objection that no sufficient ground for recognition of refugee status could be recognized: the fact that there is no ground for rejection of the decision of decision of July 18, 2017, as of the date of the decision of November 21, 2016, the entries in subparagraphs A, B, B

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is well-known.

The Republic of Korea is a national of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Korea”).

The plaintiff is U.S.

In this regard, her mother was forced to live together with a man, and given birth to her two daughters.

However, the plaintiff has been in the Republic of Korea since he was unable to check the continuous threat of the live-in partner.

As such, the Plaintiff is well-known.

On the other hand, refugee status should be recognized inasmuch as there is a concern for threatening from the male living together.

B. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines a refugee as “a foreigner who is unable to be protected or does not want to be protected from the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or who, due to such fear, does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea, or who is a state of nationality and who does not want to return.

The threat of the Plaintiff’s assertion to return to the instant case is a man living together with the Plaintiff, which is merely a general illegal act, and it is difficult to view that the cause for recognition of refugee status, i.e., race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion, is a reason for recognition of refugee status as prescribed by the Refugee Act.