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

On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on October 7, 2013, while entering the Republic of ASEAN (C-3) as a foreigner with the nationality of the Republic of Austria (hereinafter referred to as "ASEAN") and staying in the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) visa.

On June 12, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny 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 that would be subject to 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 July 8, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as April 2, 2015, and the said dismissal ruling was notified to the Plaintiff on June 22, 2015.

【In the absence of dispute, 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, and the Plaintiff’s parent liveded in a state of Egbo, a parasian male male male male male male male male male male male male male male male female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female female

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff would be injured due to religion is high in case that the plaintiff returned to Naria.

Judgment

If the above facts are added to the contents of evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution to the plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

The plaintiff was prepared to return to the Republic of Korea and enter the Republic of Korea after hearing the sound of the church. Even if the cultural differences are considered, the plaintiff's life and death are considered.