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

On April 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on May 9, 2014, when he/she entered and stayed in the Republic of Korea for short-term visit visa (C-3) on April 27, 2014.

On July 28, 2015, 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 August 17, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 14, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on April 4, 2016.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the lawfulness of the instant disposition indicated in Gap’s No. 1 through 3, Eul’s No. 1, and 2 was an leuk-in who resides in Naria Casian Republic of Korea on October 15, 2013, and the Plaintiff’s parents died of the Plaintiff’s parents due to the bomb terrorism against Islaman organization of Islamic armed terrorism and the occurrence of an accident in which South-North Korean defectors were missing.

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 contents of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 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.

Since the risk of Borocis is a social issue, the universal risk existing in Borocia is only a social issue, so unless there are special circumstances where Borocis is likely to do gambling by specifying the plaintiff, family members or surrounding persons are the terrorism of Borocis.