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 August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, a national of the Republic of Chicago (hereinafter referred to as “C-3”), filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 25, 2015, when entering the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit (C-3) and staying there, and the period of stay expires ( August 26, 2015).

B. On September 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution as a refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the father, who was a member of a local group, died of an attack from a local group, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was forced by the local group to act as a member on behalf of the father.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a refugee.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "refugee" means a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected from the country of his/her nationality due to well-founded fear that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable or does not want to return to the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "state of his/her nationality");

C. In light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, judgment Nos. 1