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 February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter “ASEAN”), entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) and applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant on February 24, 2015 (hereinafter “previous application for recognition of refugee status”).

B. On December 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as “a sufficiently-founded fear that he/she will suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 4, 2016, but the decision was rendered on May 31, 2016 to dismiss the plaintiff's application.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the foregoing refugee non-recognition disposition (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Gudan18388), but on October 20, 2016, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on October 20, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 7, 2017 (Seoul High Court 2016Nu76116).

On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff again filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant for the same reasons as the previous refugee status application. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition for refugee status non-recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as “a well-founded fear that he/she will suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 13, 2017, but was dismissed on March 21, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's plaintiff's assertion is a sweaker, but the plaintiff's assistance is a sweaker in the village B of Hungary.