1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Bangladesh with the nationality of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (hereinafter “the People’s Republic of Bangladesh”), and stayed in the Republic of Korea four times by extending the period of stay on four occasions on October 22, 2008, and filed an application for the recognition of refugee status with the Defendant on August 2, 2013, when the expiration date ( August 21, 2013) was 19 days before the expiration date.

(hereinafter “instant refugee application”). B.

On January 22, 2014, the Defendant rejected the instant refugee application on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that is likely to be injured” as a requirement for refugee under Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee Protocol”).

(See Evidence No. 1, hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (C)

The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Minister of Justice on March 3, 2014, but the Minister of Justice dismissed it on September 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted as a member of the Islamic Party (Jamaat-e-Ismi) in Bangladesh, the Plaintiff solicited people to join the Islamic Party, invited people to Islamic Party meetings, and led people without money to do so.

Accordingly, on October 26, 2007, the supporters of the Awamag, the Egypty party of Bangladesh, found the plaintiff and assaulted the plaintiff, and around 2012, the plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea and visited the Bangladesh at the time of the Republic of Korea, and the plaintiff threatened the plaintiff.

Therefore, if the plaintiff returned to Bangladesh, there is a risk of persecution on the grounds of political opinion, but on the other premise.