1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on April 11, 2017, as a foreigner of the nationality of the People's Republic of China (People's Republic of China, hereinafter "China"), with C-3 (short-term visit) sojourn status.

B. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on April 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition on June 1, 2017, and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground on March 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 2014, the Plaintiff’s husband, who claimed, was trained in the Korean War by the introduction of the Ministry of Employment and Labor B, which is a workplace club, and the Plaintiff was also allowed to practice in the Korean War since July 2016, upon the husband’s recommendation.

The plaintiff, around November 2016, was trained with her husband at the home with her husband. However, due to a neighbor's report, he/she found a public proposal and arrested the plaintiff and her husband.

The plaintiff and her husband were investigated as to whether they had been detained in prison for about 15 days, and they did not think that the training of the plaintiff was wrong, and the public design was also cleeped by the plaintiff.

In addition, the husband of the plaintiff was also subject to the king from the public peace.

In the end, the plaintiff and her husband were able to leave the 5,000 bill of each fine.

The plaintiff is his own country.