1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is U.S.

On March 27, 2013, a foreigner with the nationality of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “C-3”) applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on June 17, 2013 while entering the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit visa (C-3, the period of stay 90 days) and staying there.

On May 30, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of 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.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on June 12, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as July 1, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on November 23, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition in the absence of dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1, and 3

In this regard, the same-sex organizations have joined and are threatened by the residents for this reason.

Therefore, the plaintiff is likely to do so.

When returning to Korea, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite high possibility of persecution due to the above circumstances is unlawful.

Judgment

In addition to the above-mentioned facts, it is not sufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances, which can be known when adding the contents of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2, and 4 as well as the purport of all the arguments. The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate since there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

The plaintiff is married twice to male and has her children, and he/she has sexual intercourse for money.

It is not confirmed that the circumstances to regard the plaintiff as the same-sex do not exist, such as that the plaintiff does not have any dynamic or love.

U.S.C.

The Criminal Code has a provision punishing same-sexs, and there is a well-known provision.

There is a suspicion and discrimination against same-sexs.