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

A. On September 6, 2014, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of India (hereinafter referred to as “ India”), entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on July 22, 2016.

B. On July 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff 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 filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 1, 2017, but the application was dismissed on March 21, 2018, and the Plaintiffs appealed against this.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had a director in the village in which he had resided. Since he forced the plaintiff, who was an hing school, to open a hing school to the plaintiff as an hing school, and assaulted the plaintiff, there is sufficient concern that the plaintiff will face imminent fear in case of returning to India, and this is a well-founded fear, but the disposition of this case which did not recognize it on a different premise is unlawful.

(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 In addition to the Plaintiff’s statement, there is no objective evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff.