1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on October 31, 2013 while entering the Republic of Canada for short-term visit visa (C-3 and 30 days of stay) and staying there.

On September 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 10, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as September 24, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on October 19, 2015.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, the Plaintiff’s family members asserting the legitimacy of the instant disposition indicated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 are members of the local group called "B", and the Plaintiff’s father was the father of the said local group.

On February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff’s father, who died, made a will that the Plaintiff would be a member of the above local organization, and forced the Plaintiff to find the Plaintiff’s house and to raise awareness of succession to the family. On May 14, 2011, the Plaintiff got a permanent threat, such as getting out of the Plaintiff’s house, but continuing to play a monmon, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Kamera.

Judgment

If the above facts are added to the purport of the statement Nos. 4 and 5 as well as the whole of the pleadings, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff has a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution, taking into account the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.