1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On July 23, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with short-term status of stay (C-2) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 21, 201, which is the expiration date of the period of stay.

The defendant, on April 16, 2013, promulgated with sufficient grounds for persecution (the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)

) The Plaintiff rejected the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that Article 2 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist.

On May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 27, 2013, but the objection was dismissed on December 23, 2013.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the facts alleged in Gap’s Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings was lawful, and the Plaintiff, as a paradician, was living in the Republic of Korea (Baba), and came to be at the Madu-gu (Mauguri) where he may take the part of automobile parts from pro-Japanese around October 2010 in order to have the automobile parts business carried out from pro-Japanese.

At this point, a woman living together with her natives and went to another church, and she was killed by Boko Ham (Booo Ham) established by Islamic fundamentalism holders, and the plaintiff attacked her as the location of her natives and 10 members, together with about 10 members of her natives and her members.

At this time, the plaintiff's face is known to Boco Ba, and the plaintiff is threatened with continuous murder from Boco Ba.

Therefore, even though there exists a fear that is sufficient basis for the plaintiff's return to Austria, it was unlawful that the disposition of this case was judged differently.

related.