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 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Man (hereinafter “Man”) and applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant on June 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On August 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fears that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 14, 2018, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on May 27, 2019.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, and Eul evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion residents of the native village led to their livelihood while collecting gold from the gold mine located in the village. However, the Republic of Korea sold the gold mine to a private company without the consent of the residents.

Accordingly, the residents caused the required situation such as destroying the equipment of the company, and one police officer died in the process.

Accordingly, the government has been responsible for the above required situation to B, which represents the plaintiff's high-speed village, and arrested and punished the members of the above organization.

The plaintiff, who is a member of the government, was driving away from the government, and the damage plaintiff, who is a nationality state, entered the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of refugee status even though there is a risk of persecution if the Plaintiff would return to her country of nationality, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) Determination 1: race, religion, nationality, and specific;