1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea and application for recognition of refugee - Nationality: Mongo - Entry: December 27, 2016 (Status of Sojourn: C-3) - Application for recognition of refugee status: May 1, 2017;

B. Defendant’s decision on the recognition of refugee status as of September 22, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”): The ground for recognition does not constitute “a well-founded fear that she would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Sept. 2, 2017)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is threatened with the obligee’s threat because the Plaintiff borrowed money from the country of nationality and was unable to repay the money, and thus, the Plaintiff’s return to the country of nationality is sufficiently likely to be harmed, and this constitutes a reasonable fear.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to, or does not want to return to, the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.

(No. 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status, refers to “any act causing serious infringement or discrimination on essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom,” and the fact that there is a “comfortable fear” subject to such persecution must be attested by a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378 Decided April 25, 2013). Even in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the gambling alleged by the Plaintiff is a member of a race, religion, nationality, and a specific social group.