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 19, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on June 23, 2016 while entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on June 19, 2016.

B. On August 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be recognized “a sufficiently well-founded fear that would be affected by persecution” as a requirement for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 9, 2016, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on December 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same-sex who has a well-founded fear of persecution by the government or the local community when they return to the Republic of Korea as a same-sex.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff, taking into account the above facts of recognition and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the entire arguments, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1) The Plaintiff did not have been arrested or detained in his home country on the ground that he was the same-sex baby, and there is no particular fact that he was suffering from gambling. 2) The Plaintiff rendered a judgment that recognized the same-sex baby around 2009, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a concern for the Plaintiff to be punished solely on the ground that he was the same-sex baby.

3 Even according to the plaintiff's statement itself, the plaintiff did not disclose his/her sexual orientation to the outside and activities related to the same sex.