1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of a decision not to recognize refugee status;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) on February 25, 2014 as a student B of his/her nationality in Canada.

B. On March 13, 2014, the first application for refugee status: (a) the Plaintiff applied for refugee status to the Defendant on March 13, 2014; (b) the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2015; and (c) the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on December 14, 2015.

② The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the decision on rejection of refugee status by asserting that “the Plaintiff filed a civil petition by finding a widely known company due to the working conditions of the company that the Plaintiff had worked, but was administered on the ground of disturbance and finding a re-known will have shown internal documents,” but on June 23, 2016 (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Nu696), the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu5206), and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2017Du3206) were dismissed, and the said decision became final and conclusive on May 5, 2017.

C. On June 27, 2017, after the decision became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff, who is an English holder, cannot return home as well as the Plaintiff, who was an English holder, shall not return home because the English holder, who had an independent movement in the English area, was stuffed by the Government.”

② On February 20, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff satisfied the refugee status requirement, considering the fact that “It is difficult to find out that there was no state circumstance that the Kamera Government’s government stuffs all English residents who did not participate in the demonstration, and that the Plaintiff, who did not participate in the independence movement in the English territory, could not be stuffed by the Government.”

(3)