1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on November 13, 2012 on a short-term visit (C-3, the period of stay between November 13, 2012 and February 11, 2013) with the nationality of the Republic of ASEAN (Federia, hereinafter referred to as “Naria”), and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on January 23, 2013.

On March 25, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that she would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, and the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 16, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to whether there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, was legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s father was the head of the community of senior citizens in the region where the Plaintiff was living, and the Plaintiff also joined the organization of senior citizens.

During that period on September 23, 2012, the parents were dead as a deadly weapon terrorism in Bochin, a Islamic religious organization of Bochin, and the Plaintiff also died.

9.28.An injury sustained as a terrorist bombomb;

Furthermore, Boi threatened the plaintiff to die if the plaintiff did not transfer the house mortgage inherited from his father to his father.

As such, the plaintiff is at risk of persecutioning on religious grounds when he/she feel a threat to his/her life and body due to a non-discriminatory terrorism, which is active in Austria.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

Judgment

The above evidence Nos. 3 and 4 are written and the pleading is made.