1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on October 7, 201 as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Man (hereinafter referred to as “Man”) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on November 3, 201, as a short-term comprehensive (C-3, 30 days) sojourn status.

The defendant, on June 19, 2013, promulgated with sufficient grounds for persecution (the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)

) On the ground that Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist (hereinafter “instant disposition”), a disposition for non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 25, 2013, but the said objection was dismissed on April 11, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap’s evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate; Plaintiff’s family members, who moved to Qura with his family in Roloro (Lloo) with his family in 195 and moved to Gauacua (Galkpa) with his family in 195, were married to Mura.

However, on May 3, 2011, Islamic Scuador caused the occurrence of murdering of the Acuaduado, and there was a cause of ties between the Acuaduador's Acuador's Rcua and Sllim's Mcua.

The plaintiff had experienced danger and escaped from another country immediately, and the plaintiff's family members had expressed that they had been faced with other countries, such as Liberia for a considerable period of time.

As such, even though the Plaintiff’s return to her country is likely to be harmed by reason of religion, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

Article 2 subparag. 3 and Article 76-2(1) of the Immigration Control Act, and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.