2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 19, 2014 while entering and staying in the Republic of ASEAN (C-3) as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as "ASEAN").

On May 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 11, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as September 24, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2015.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition as indicated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 was an attack by Bogbo (Igbo) in the church located in Bogbo-gu (Mauguri) of Boli-gu (Igbo) on February 2014, the Plaintiff was killed by ten members of the Islamic armed forces, as he/she had a meeting with the members of the Jeondoo.

The plaintiff had fleded from the above attack, but the letter of intimidation was left in front of the plaintiff's office, stating that Bodon will die by finding the plaintiff, who was the Dondon team leader.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff would be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Austria.

Judgment

If the above facts are added to the purport of the statements and the whole arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution, taking into account the following circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.