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 February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of short-term visit (C-3) on a short-term visit (C-3), and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on April 18, 2013.

B. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be prejudicial to persecution” as a requirement of refugee 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 July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 21, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on July 1, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was made by the plaintiff as a bamao sula, the water supply of Mari, and as a fula sulna, the parent's high-flus flus, the parent's high-flus flus, around 190.

The plaintiff left an elementary school from around 2002 to around 2012, and lived with a store that sells video and audio goods.

On March 2012, there was a threat that the members of MNLA (hereinafter referred to as "MNLA"), which is the anti-military organization of the North Korean part of the horse-ri, would die if they find the plaintiff two times and demand that the plaintiff be a member of the organization of the anti-military group.

In addition, around April 2012, on the ground that the lighting staff of Ansaridine (Ansar Dine) who is an armed Islamic organization associated with Alca, violated the Sharian Law, which he gets the Plaintiff's home, attached the Plaintiff's house and house, due to the violation of the Sharian Law that he gets the Plaintiff's home.

Therefore, in the event that the plaintiff returned to MaNA organization, from the above members of the anti-government organization were refused.