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 with a short-term visit (C-3) on January 11, 2017, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on January 18, 2017.

B. On March 3, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Minister of Justice on April 19, 2016, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on July 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a regional head, and after his death on June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff, a South-North Korean head, had the authority to succeed to the status of the family head and inheritance of the family head, and the ability to work for the family head, as well as the ability to work for the family head, threatens the Plaintiff.

On June 7 to 2016, 2016, 3 persons in the third village of the plaintiff were able to summon the plaintiff in the South African Republic of Korea, and around the end of 2016, the plaintiff's home located in the Republic of South African Republic of South Africa destroyed the window of the plaintiff's house after killing the plaintiff, and 6 persons of the same Cheongbubide business operator attempted to kill the plaintiff in the middle of his work.

On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff was threatened with the knife from three men at the Hanasberg Twitter.

For this reason, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee even though the plaintiff could be affected by gambling when he returns home to his country is illegal.

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 Subparag. 1 and Article 18 of the Refugee Act, Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, the race, religion, nationality, and specific social group.