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

On March 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on September 25, 2013, while entering the Republic of Rotten (D-4 and 1 year of stay) and staying in the Republic of Korea as a visa for studying (D-4 and 1 year of stay).

On August 19, 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 September 3, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on July 1, 2015.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition indicated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, is the Plaintiff’s non-slateral father of the Republic of Korea, and the mother, who is a slicker in the Guerze’s origin, in the Republic of Korea, in the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, in the Republic of Korea, in the Republic of Korea, in the Republic of Korea, in the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, in the Republic of Korea.

However, on July 15, 2013, after the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea, there was a dispute between the Zatium and the Zatium and the Zatium, and there was a case of murdering the external third village, external latium, external latium, and external latium where the Zatium had the latium of the latium.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though it is highly likely that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to a dispute between the clans.

Judgment

It is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution in full view of the following circumstances, which can be known when adding the respective descriptions and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including each number) to the above facts of recognition, and since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

Corresponding in July 15, 2013.