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 June 5, 2016, 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 as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on June 14, 2016.

B. On December 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fear 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 Relating to the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on February 2, 2018, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on September 14, 2018.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, and Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a same-sex and was discriminated against his family on the ground that the Plaintiff was married to the Islamic Republic of Korea.

In addition, U.S.C.

Within the past, there are threats and suppressions such as arrest to police or violence by others on the ground that the social reflection of same-sexs is severe and they are same-sexs.

Therefore, the plaintiff is the Republic of Korea.

If you return to Korea, it is likely to be threatened with life or physical freedom.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not accept the plaintiff's application for refugee status should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. 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 such cases, the relevant applicant’s objective evidence is given to the relevant foreigner in light of the special circumstances of the refugee.