1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 29, 2011, the Plaintiff, a national of the Republic of Ghana (hereinafter referred to as “A”), applied for refugee status to the Defendant on January 15, 2015 while entering the Republic of Korea for diplomatic stay (A-1 and the period of stay three years) after the expiration of the period of stay.

On December 28, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on February 18, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on September 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the overall purport of the disposition of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate in the disposition of this case, and then the plaintiff's family member returned to Muslim and assaulted and threatened the plaintiff.

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

Judgment

If the above facts are added to the contents of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is not sufficient to view that the plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution, taking into account the following circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

The reason for the application for refugee status asserted by the Plaintiff seems to be merely a religious conflict between family members rather than a religious conflict, and it is difficult to view it as a ground for recognition of refugee status under the Refugee Act.

Even if this is religious stuffed, it is argued.