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 October 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on October 10, 2015, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 26, 2015.

B. On May 10, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 23, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as October 27, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's house had to gather and observe the believers in the highly advanced village as large as possible. The plaintiff's assistance division refused to engage in a new town, thereby driving away from a high-speed village, and the plaintiff's father was forced to engage in a new town. However, in 192 to 193, the plaintiff's response refused to engage in a new village and escaped along with his mother's father.

Since then, the plaintiff was forced to engage in a new job, and the threats of the plaintiff were to kill the plaintiff's siblings as a zero attack, respectively, and the plaintiff threatened that they will be the same rank.

From 2004 to 2015, the plaintiff's native village residents found the plaintiff in Lao every year, forced him/her to do work, and warn him/her that he/she could die if he/she refuses to do so.

However, the plaintiff is in a state in which it is impossible to gather the believers as a senior citizen.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite high possibility that the plaintiff would be subject to gambling when he returns to the country of nationality is illegal.

B. Determination 1.