1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs were born on October 11, 2016 when they entered and stayed in the Republic of Korea for short-term visits (C-3) from June 25, 2016.

Plaintiff

A and B applied for refugee status on July 26, 2016, and Plaintiff C applied for refugee status on October 31, 2016.

B. On September 6, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”) on the ground that each of the plaintiffs’ claims against the plaintiff A, B, and C does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as prescribed by the requirements for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

C. Each of the instant dispositions is dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, and Plaintiff A and B filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 7, 2016, and Plaintiff C on February 6, 2017, but each of the respective objections was dismissed on July 18, 2017. The Plaintiffs received each notice of dismissal decision on July 21, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that they were forced to respond to the attack of the anti-military forces while serving as a soldier in the Congo, and they were forced to be punished if they were forced to return to their country on the ground of their escape. The plaintiffs Eul was raped with the anti-military forces during their escape. In addition, the plaintiffs Eul and C constitute a refugee by the plaintiffs Eul and C constitutes a refugee, and thus, they should be recognized as a refugee by family combination principle.

Therefore, even though the status of the Plaintiff A and B as a member of a political view or a specific social group is considered as a refugee based on the principle of family combination, the Defendant’s respective dispositions of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) judgment;