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

A. On February 21, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on December 14, 2015, while entering the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E-9) foreigner, who is of the nationality of Bangladesh, and staying in the Republic of Korea.

B. On March 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized “ sufficiently based fears that would be detrimental to persecution” stipulated as the requirements for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 15, 2016, but rendered a final decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application on December 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s form of the Plaintiff joined the Korean National Assembly (BNP) that is the camping party in Bangladesh, and were engaged in the solicitation of donations. On February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on and around August 31, 2015, and visited the Republic of Korea on and before the Plaintiff’s home country at the time of having visited the Republic of Korea on August 31, 2015, sought to resolve the second issue regarding the arrested sentence of the Plaintiff’s second offense, and was arrested and detained by the Plaintiff and the Party members arrested and detained, and were assaulted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though it is highly likely that the plaintiff would be stuffed by the plaintiff's party members on the ground that the plaintiff is engaged in the BNP activities in the case of the plaintiff's return to Bangladesh.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the above facts of recognition and the purport of the evidence No. 3 and the entire arguments, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has a well-founded fear of persecution, and it is otherwise recognized.