1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 4, 2017, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay for visa exemption (B-1) from November 4, 2017, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on December 12, 2017.

B. On November 22, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Specific grounds are as follows:

In full view of all other statements and related circumstances, including the fact that a fetus was already dead to the husband of a pregnant woman who is a guardian, or that it is difficult to obtain the claim that the father of the pregnant woman transferred all responsibilities to the applicant who is a midwife, even though the fetus was not dead due to medical negligence, and that it seems difficult to obtain the claim that the father of the pregnant woman transferred all responsibilities to the applicant who is a midwife and threatened with the death of the fetus, and that the threat of a private person can be requested to the competent judicial authority, the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to be a “person subject to the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act,” and shall not be recognized as a refugee for the

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 5, 2018, but was dismissed on October 18, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked in Kazakhistan as a midwife, and the pregnant or nursing woman’s fetus was dead.

Although the death of a fetus was not due to medical malpractice, it threatened the Plaintiff that the husband of the pregnant woman is liable to the Plaintiff, and that “the death will be the same as that of the pregnant woman,” and the Plaintiff has suffered damage.

Kazakhstan is not good for public order, but can not be protected by police.

The plaintiff's statement.