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 June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Bangladesh People’s Republic (hereinafter “the Bangladesh”) as a foreigner of nationality, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 24, 2016, by entering the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn status.

B. On November 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status on the ground that the “ sufficiently based fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees cannot be recognized.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on November 30, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on February 14, 2019.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 Facts, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and Eul's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff joined Bangladesh, a country of nationality, as a member of the B political party (B political party; hereinafter “B political party”) in around 2006, and subsequently, around 2008, he was engaged in B party-related activities by around 2009, including activities as a unit of the area of Tazurar, and became employed after entering the Republic of Korea on June 27, 2012.

Since then, the plaintiff resided in the Republic of Korea and visited Bangladesh several times, and has been threatened several times by C Party(C Party(hereinafter referred to as "C Party") members during the visit period.

The plaintiff was assaulted by the members of the C Party, mash the car in which the plaintiff was in Germany, and received hospital treatment, and forced them to cut off the plaintiff's house.

Therefore, although the plaintiff's return to Bangladesh is likely to pose a threat to life or physical freedom, the defendant's disposition that did not accept the plaintiff's application for refugee status is unlawful.