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

A. On April 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-31 and 10 days of stay), and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on June 25, 2013.

B. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition 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 suffer persecution” as a refugee requirement 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] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 28, 2013 and April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff’s alleged Islamic armed forces, forced the Plaintiff residing in the Islamic Republic of Korea, to join their organizations, and severely assaulted the Plaintiff to refuse to join the organization.

After the plaintiff's entry into the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff's consciousness was found to have visited the plaintiff's house on April 29, 2013 to murdering the plaintiff's South Eastern, and the plaintiff's call was not made from May 1, 2013.

Therefore, when the plaintiff returns to Austria, he/she is a refugee inasmuch as he/she had a high risk of being killed due to booming from Boco damage.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 3 and Article 76-2(1) of the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Defendant is a member of a race, religion, nationality, and specific social group.