1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on August 29, 2012, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on September 25, 2012.

B. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 27, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on April 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) as a party member of the PPA (PPA), which is a minority party of Ageia, carried out an election campaign in an election of a widely known company that was carried out in 2007. After the election was completed, members of the PDP (People) at the time of the election, forced the Plaintiff to kidnapped the Plaintiff and move to a PDP, and the Plaintiff rejected it.

Since then, the plaintiff escaped and moved the above threat to the Choos-si along with the damaged family members.

B. On December 25, 201, 201, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members died of all other family members except the Plaintiff due to the bloko’s bru terrorism at the church, a Islamic armed force group.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that the disposition of this case by the Plaintiff is unlawful, even though the Plaintiff’s return to Hungary is likely to be stuffed from PEP party members and Boco Ba, for the foregoing reasons.

나. 관계 법령 ▣ 구...