1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is U.S.

On July 3, 2015, an alien with the nationality of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “C-3”) applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on July 20, 2015 while entering the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit visa (C-3, the period of stay 20 days) and staying there.

On August 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 14, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 14, 2015.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition as stated in Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1, and 2, was made by joining a same-sex organization since around 2013 with the knowledge that he/she was the same-sex.

In the meantime, around 2014, the fact that he was sexual intercourses in the company's world was made public and that he was boomed from his family members.

Therefore, the plaintiff is likely to do so.

When returning to Korea, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite high possibility of persecution due to the above circumstances is unlawful.

Judgment

In addition to the above facts, it is not sufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances, which can be known when adding the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and Eul evidence No. 4 to the purport of the whole pleadings. The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise

U.S.C.

The plaintiff's statement about the same-sex organizations is inaccurate and concrete, and the plaintiff does not engage in same-sex activities in the Republic of Korea.