1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 29, 2014 while entering the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit visa (C-3 and 30 days of stay) on a short-term visit visa (C-3 and 30 days of stay).

On October 23, 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 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 December 16, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on May 31, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” did not have any dispute, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition as indicated in Gap’s Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s Nos. 1 and 2 had worked as an electrical engineer in Kamera, and the Plaintiff’s work as an inferior material purchased by the Plaintiff’s company on December 19, 2013, and fire occurred.

As a result, the plaintiff was arrested to the police, but escape from the police's will and entered the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Kamera.

Judgment

The grounds for the application for refugee status asserted by the Plaintiff are an individual dispute or a criminal crime, and it does not constitute a ground for recognition of refugee status under the Refugee Act by itself.

In addition, even when considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution as provided by the Refugee Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate.

(a)inform;