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 March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 18, 2016 while entering the Republic of Korea for visa exemption (B-1) and staying there.

B. On August 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 13, 2016, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on February 24, 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. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was infinite, and was subject to violence and intimidation by her husband who forced the Plaintiff to repent to Islamic intercourse.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff would be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Thailand.

B. In order to be recognized as a refugee, in addition to the requirement that the applicant for refugee status has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country, the applicant has been made on the ground of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The reason for the persecution alleged by the Plaintiff is that “the Plaintiff’s husband who forced her husband to enter the Republic of Korea is threatened,” and even if all of the Plaintiff’s arguments are acknowledged, this is a matter to be resolved by using the judicial system of his own country, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the government of the Thailand implieds or abandons the act of gambling by a private person on the ground of the her opening of Korea