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

On June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 15, 2013 while entering and staying in the Republic of ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as "ASEAN") as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as "ASEAN").

On April 21, 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 May 13, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as April 2, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap's evidence 1 to 4, Eul's evidence 1 and 2 was adopted to the adoptive parent in 190.

The Plaintiff’s two sides were a political person belonging to Austria APGA and a senior public official belonging to the Republic of Korea. On January 11, 2013, when the Plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff was arrested by the static and killed.

After all, the plaintiff is threatened by the murderer of both sides, such as intimidation telephone for both sides, etc.

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

It is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances, which can be known when adding the respective entries and the purport of the entire arguments in the above facts of recognition Nos. 3 through 6 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.