1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on May 24, 2017, with the status of stay C-3 (short-term visit) (short-term visit) of the Republic of Senegal (Roegal).

B. On August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant. However, on February 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition for refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear that there is a possibility of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On March 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice against the instant disposition. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as on November 29, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Two denials were made to the plaintiff's assertion, but the second denial was made by the plaintiff's mother's second denial.

From the time of the plaintiff's death, the plaintiff lived with the first denial of the plaintiff's mother and the double-presidential system, and around September 2016, the first denial of the plaintiff's mother's death and the harassment of the double-presidential system was serious.

On November 2016, the Plaintiff was in the same room as a double-presidential system. However, he was unable to use booms against the Plaintiff. During that process, the Plaintiff assaulted the Plaintiff.

In the event that the plaintiff returns to the third NA as his home country, the plaintiff still could be threatened from the first denial of the plaintiff's referral and the double-class system, and thus, he applied for refugee recognition in this case.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff.