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 November 12, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term comprehensive (C-3, and 90 days of sojourn) status on a short-term integrated (C-3, and 90 days of sojourn) and left the Republic of Korea on February 8, 2010.

On June 3, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term stay status (C-2) on a short-term stay status (C-2) and then stayed after changing the status of stay to investments (D-2), and left the Republic of Korea on January 24, 2012.

On March 14, 2012, the Plaintiff re-entry the Republic of Korea on March 14, 2012, and filed an application for recognition of refugee with the Defendant on April 6, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refugee application”). B.

On May 13, 2013, the Defendant rejected the instant refugee application on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that it would be detrimental to the status of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee Protocol”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on June 28, 2013, but the objection was dismissed on April 11, 2014.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is staying in G-1) until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On December 3, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion was sought at the original unit price operated by the Plaintiff’s father, demanding the Plaintiff to pay money, and made intimidation to the Plaintiff’s accession to the lelebs. The Plaintiff’s father rejected the Plaintiff’s refusal to have no money.

On December 11, 2011, Leban demanded the plaintiff to recover his father again, and refuse to request the money.