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

A. On February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the Republic of Mari (hereinafter “Mari”)’s nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status and stayed, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 20, 2013, prior to the expiration date of the period of stay ( March 21, 2013).

B. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny 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 prescribed by 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 visited his/her parents for 3-4 months each year in order to operate a Malaco's Malaco's cell phone, clothes, and otobs, etc. in order to assist livestock business. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) visited his/her Malaco's northwest, the MaUJAO, and the Mansar Ansaridine, an armed terrorist organization, with influence over his/her coaches or regions; (b) went through the gambling of the Plaintiff's family members to kill the Plaintiff's family members on January 9, 2013; and (c) forced the Plaintiff and his/her family members on January 10, 2013, and followed the Sharia's Shari Act; and (d) murdered the Plaintiff on January 13, 2013. < Amended by Act No. 11614, Mar. 11, 2013>

The plaintiff escaped to the Mamaco of the south of Mari, but the possibility of attack is so high that it could be attacked with anti-military suspicion.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a refugee who is likely to be injured for reasons of religion and political opinion when returning to Korea.

Nevertheless, the Defendant.