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

On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (hereinafter referred to as the "Ligle"), filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 20, 2012, which was about four years and 11 months after the expiration of the period of stay ( March 28, 2007) after entering the Republic of Korea.

On April 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff as having “probed well-founded grounds for gambling” [see Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees; Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 19, 2014, but was dismissed on December 16, 2014.

[Based on the basis of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, and the plaintiff joined the student organization of the National Party of Bangladesh (BNP; hereinafter "BNP") around 199, and the plaintiff's attached was the chairman of the area under the NP party's Dogna (Dogma, hereinafter "AL"). The counter party's counter-party's counter-party's counter-party's counter-party's counter-party's counter-party's counter-party's counter-party's counter-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party's sub-party and property's sub-party's sub-party.

If the plaintiff returned to Bangladesh, there is a risk of persecutioning on the grounds of a political opinion and a member status of a specific social group, but the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee. The disposition of this case is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

In light of the following circumstances, each statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the plate No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff has a “sufficiently-founded fear of persecution.”