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

A. On August 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 25, 2014, which was prior to the expiration of the period of stay ( September 16, 2014), when having entered the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn on a short-term basis on August 17, 2014.

B. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-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 the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) graduated from the Republic of Korea at Liberia, Liberia, around 1987, from a high school; and (b) engaged in trading heavy clothing; and (c) resided in the marina Ri, located from around 2010 to around 2013, in the Republic of Korea, in the Madu Ri, located at the end of the northwest-dong west, and engaged in the same business with B.

However, around 2013, B, a Islamic terrorist terrorist group, joined Bocon, forced the Plaintiff to join Boconnn, but it was known that the Plaintiff refused to join.

After that, B, along with other assistant officers, threatened the Plaintiff with a telephone position, and the Plaintiff was mainly informed of the identification and self-determination of the Plaintiff. On December 3, 2013, 2013, when two members of Bocoi died from the Plaintiff’s house, the Plaintiff also concealed the Plaintiff’s house into the Plaintiff’s house and the Liber, etc. with the Plaintiff’s home.

Therefore, when the plaintiff returned to Korea, he/she constitutes a refugee who is likely to be injured on the ground of his/her status as a member of a religion or a specific social group.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did so on a different premise.