1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter “Kazakhstan”) as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and applied for refugee status (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on March 20, 2017.

B. On April 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fears that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized as the requirement of refugee status.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 11, 2018, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on July 30, 2019.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s religion asserted is Islamic v. Surpa (hereinafter “Nurpa”).

However, the Plaintiff-friendly Gu, the Islamic Simpa (hereinafter “Simpa”), threatened the Plaintiff with the opening of Simpa to Simpa.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea by leaving skhly khly khly, entered the Republic of Korea, and had the Plaintiff file the instant application.

Therefore, even though there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to gambling in the event of return to Kazakhstan, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on a different premise, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. (1) Determination 1) The fact that an applicant for refugee status has “abruptly-founded fear” on the grounds of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion” ought to be attested by the refugee applicant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378, Apr. 25, 2013). In this context, the refugee applicant’s special position.