The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the instant case is the case seeking revocation of a disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff’s refugee status on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for recognition of refugee status against the Defendant based on the Refugee Act, but did not recognize the Plaintiff’s refugee status from the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for recognition of refugee status.

The judgment of the first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is no fear that there is sufficient grounds for persecution as prescribed in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol, and the Plaintiff appealed against this.

[Attachment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes]

B. On the premise of the premise, evidence 1, 2, 1, 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings (i.e., the plaintiff is a male (B) of Austrian nationality, and the defendant is the head of the Immigration Office to whom the Minister of Justice delegated the authority to recognize the status of a refugee pursuant to Articles 8 and 46 of the Refugee Act and Article 24 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act.

B. On March 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as short-term visit status (C-3) and applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant on April 3, 2014.

However, on February 26, 2015, the Defendant rejected the recognition of the status of a refugee against the Plaintiff on the ground that the “sufficient fear of persecution” prescribed as a requirement for recognition of a refugee status under Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol is not recognized.

The plaintiff's objection and the decision of dismissal by the Minister of Justice on June 29, 2015 raised an objection against the Minister of Justice based on Article 21 (1) of the Refugee Act, but the Minister of Justice raised an objection on September 24, 2015 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for recognition of refugee status.