1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on October 20, 2014 while entering the Republic of Canada for a short-term visit visa (C-3 and 30 days of stay) (hereinafter referred to as "C-3") and staying there.

On July 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of 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 of 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 August 11, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is the plaintiff's parasorists from the Northwest-ro's regional non-coru village.

However, on May 2010, the father, who was the village director, died, forced the plaintiff to succeed to the deficient position, and the plaintiff refused to do so, and the leader of the village committed violence against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's her birth was killed after receiving a zero attack.

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 contents of evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution to the plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

The plaintiff is not aware of who assaults himself/herself or who has sent.

However, there is a lack.