1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term official (Status C-2) visa on June 25, 2011, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on September 21, 201.

The defendant, on February 27, 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 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 refugees (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 18, 2013, but the said objection was dismissed on December 23, 2013.

[Based on recognition, the Plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap evidence 1-1, No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate. On May 3, 201, the Plaintiff was compelled to kill a vehicle which was transported by a sloping team and towed by a nearby mountain, while driving from the "Ahmdkhel" in the Amistan City in the Amistan as of May 3, 201.

When the plaintiff reported the above fact to the pro-Japanese police, the lebomb was put to the police station located in the city where the lebane was well raised on May 21, 2011, and the plaintiff threatened the plaintiff that he will kill the vehicle if he did not bring about two vehicles.

The plaintiff is now going against the threat from the lelebal team in the damaged-friendly house.

In light of the current state of public order of Apististan, etc., the plaintiff should be deemed to have been the plaintiff with a well-founded fear that the plaintiff would suffer from gambling when he returns to Apistan. However, the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee.