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 June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of his/her nationality (hereinafter “C-2”) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on July 23, 2014 after entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term general (C-2).

B. On April 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 13, 2016, and the objection was dismissed on October 11, 2017, but on the same day, the Plaintiff was determined as a humanitarian sojourn under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Refugee Act (hereinafter “determination of humanitarian sojourn”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a member of a youth organization affiliated with mard (Mouve Management la sloarare et al.) of an youth organization, which is a camping party, within Mauradi.

In D Handling, the youth organization of the CND-FD (CND) of the Government WDD-FD (CND) la la de lamcrae - Ambense de la lamcide is threatening to compel mbone party members to have political orientationd, beta, sexual assault, etc.

On March 2014, the Plaintiff was also threatened with sexual assault on the ground of malD activities from Madrara.

In the event that the plaintiff returns to Daehan, only the fact that mD activities are conducted, there is a high possibility that it would be stuffed from Senera that the Government of Dental is behind it.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

(b)Article 2 Subparag. 1, Article 18 of the Refugee Act;