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

A. On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, who is a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of India (hereinafter “ India”), entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (90 days of stay period) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on March 10, 2015.

B. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that is a requirement for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the said application was dismissed on September 22, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff, who supported the National Assembly in India, was forced to escape from India by using political pressure, such as assault and homicide threats, etc. from the alknuri Party and the Defendant’s alknuri Party, and thus, in India, there is sufficient fear that the Plaintiff will face imminent fear in the event of returning to Korea with its own country, and it is a reasonable fear. However, the instant disposition that did not recognize it on different premise

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff has “a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion,” even if all evidence and arguments submitted by the Plaintiff were considered, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no particular political activity, and only a simple support person of the National Assembly.