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 is well-known.

On April 3, 2014, as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Mada”), the Republic of Korea entered the Republic of Korea on short-term visit (C-3) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on April 22, 2014.

B. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed to the Minister of Justice on October 16, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on March 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she joined the same-sex group of same-sexs, 2013, and worked for 3 to 4 months, and participated in the 10-minute demonstration on the roads near the Congress on December 2013. On February 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff thought that 10 persons adjoining the high-ranking group of children were friendly with her children, and threatened the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's window installed in the plaintiff's home parking lot was broken, and the plaintiff's home threatened with the plaintiff's home with the plaintiff's home, and the plaintiff's home owner deducteds the plaintiff's room, and the same-sexs like the plaintiff cannot participate in the plaintiff's face, while the plaintiff's face was taken, and the same-sexs like the plaintiff cannot participate in their children.

The plaintiff is U.S.

In the case of return to Korea, the prosecution will be prosecuted on the ground that the person participated in the demonstration on December 2013.

As such, the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee even though it is likely that the Plaintiff might be stuffed on the ground of his status as a member of a specific social group called a same-sex.