1. On December 23, 2015, the Defendant’s decision not to return refugee status review against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a man claiming that he/she is the Republic of Ethiopia (hereinafter referred to as “Mariria”), was a man who is claiming to be the nationality of the Republic of Ethiopia (hereinafter referred to as “Mariria”), was on board the aircraft for Ethiopia with a passport in the name of “B”, and arrived at the Incheon State’s Port for Transfer on November 13, 2015

B. After receiving a report that the Plaintiff did not board the transit, the Defendant found the Plaintiff on the fourth floor of the departure port, and on December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an application for refugee status to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.

On December 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to return refugee status screening (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s failure to respond to questioning, etc. related to personal matters is not possible to identify, and the Plaintiff’s submission of false documents constitutes a case where refugee status is intended by concealing facts, and there are grounds for non-return to refugee status screening prescribed in Article 5 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Refugee Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Administrative Procedures Act applies to the instant disposition in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. As such, when the Defendant takes the instant disposition, it must be in writing and present the grounds and reasons therefor to the Plaintiff (Article 23, Article 24 of the Administrative Procedures Act). The Defendant did not properly explain the grounds for the instant disposition to the Plaintiff while rendering the instant disposition and did not deliver a document pertaining to the disposition. The instant disposition was erroneous in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion of abuse of discretionary power is a forged passport that he/she believed and prepared to believe that the Plaintiff was arrested to C and escaped from the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she operated the film theater prohibited by Bomaria, a major force in the Republic of Korea.