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 September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on September 20, 2016 while entering the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on September 16, 2016.

B. On March 23, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 2, 2017, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on December 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. During the dispute with the Plaintiff’s father and miscarriage, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion caused the Plaintiff’s death by assaulting the Plaintiff’s father and causing the death of the Plaintiff’s mother.

After that, the plaintiff was abused by intimidation that all land is located from the third village. Since it is difficult for the plaintiff to be protected through the current legal system of Hungary, if the plaintiff returned to ASEAN, it will be threatened with continuing threat from the third village of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

B. In order to be recognized as a refugee, in addition to the requirement that the applicant for refugee status has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country, the applicant has been made on the ground of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The plaintiff's argument that the reason for the gambling that the plaintiff asserts is "a threat from the plaintiff's third village as an issue of inherited property" is the plaintiff's argument.