1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 12, 2013, while entering and staying in the Republic of Yemen (hereinafter referred to as “mentor”) with tourism and visa (B-2) on March 6, 2013.

On May 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve 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 of 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 June 16, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on April 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap's No. 1, 2 (including each number), Eul's No. 1, and 2 is in a hostile relationship with the plaintiff's lack of alcushion as a source of alcushion. On December 10, 2011, the plaintiff's private village killed Abruption and the escape occurred.

Accordingly, the lack of the counter-satisfys is trying to kill the plaintiff's family members including the plaintiff in order to make many deficient satisfys.

As such, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the Plaintiff was highly likely to suffer from gambling when he returned to mentmen.

Judgment

In light 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 following circumstances, which can be seen when adding the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3-2, and 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the above facts, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The reason that the plaintiff asserts is merely a legal relationship due to personal crimes, and does not constitute an booming under the Refugee-Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

After the accident alleged by the plaintiff occurred.