1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 2, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with tourism visa and visa (B-2, 30 days of sojourn) on October 2, 2012, and applied for refugee status recognition to the Defendant on January 29, 2013.

On June 16, 2014, 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 June 19, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as April 2, 2015, and was notified to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2015.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition in the entirety of the arguments and arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and Nos. 1 to 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the Plaintiff’s nationality is

Nevertheless, the plaintiff was in mentmen with female-child relationship, and thus female-child relationship became pregnant.

As such, women-friendly women-gu father, who is a historical personnel of the region of Russa and who is a member of the Simpha terrorist group, sustained intimidation the plaintiff, but murdered women-friendly Gu, and the plaintiff had no choice but to leave the field of gambling damage of the father of women-friendly Gu.

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 addition to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 in the above facts, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.