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 April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 15, 2016 while entering the Republic of Korea for a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on April 16, 2015.

B. On April 15, 2015, 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” 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.

C. On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 9, 2016, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on June 8, 2017.

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

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was threatened with intimidation on the ground that the Plaintiff was aware of Islamic from a political party supporting Trimooms (Trimomoom C ress), as a slock, and was assaulted.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even if the plaintiff's return to India is highly likely to suffer from gambling due to the above circumstances.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff, taking into account the above facts of recognition and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the entire arguments, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1. The plaintiff alleged that he was threatened by Trid Droughts at the time of refugee interview, but it was pointed out that the refugee screening officer was unable to find the above organization, and re-convened the statement that he was threatened by AITC in this court.