1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. During the process of the decision on non-recognition of refugee status ① The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) status on December 2, 2017 as a man who is a kibeck (Uzbek), and filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant on December 18, 2017.

② On May 14, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s assertion by itself does not constitute grounds for gambling, and the Plaintiff, even before the application for refugee status, entered Korea for three and nine years, left Korea for illegal stay, and departed from Korea for other reasons for gambling under the Refugee Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff carried on the automobile parts business at the KIKO, which became bankrupt due to the wind of fire, and became known to the Republic of Korea by avoiding the obligees’ threats thereby, and became aware of the business even before it.

At present, US$ 40,00 is being repaid, and in Korea, I would like to stay more than one year and six months from one year to six months.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

3. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, “persecution” which serves as the requirement for recognition of refugee status should be limited to “a race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”

The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff by itself are not based on “human race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion,” which is the cause of gambling that serves as a requirement for recognition of refugee status.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion