1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 3, 2011, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (hereinafter “the People’s Republic of Bangladesh”)’s nationality, entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term visit (90 days of stay period) and continued to stay in the Republic of Korea even after the expiration of the period of stay, and applied for refugee status on September 23, 2014.

B. On November 6, 2015, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee non-recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no “a well-founded fear that he would be injured,” which is a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees,” which is a requirement of refugee status.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, but the application was dismissed on March 23, 2016.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with her mother, and the Defendant did an interview with B before rendering the instant disposition, but did not conduct an interview with the Plaintiff, and only issued the instant disposition, without examining the documents.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 8(1) of the Refugee Act provides that the procedures for interview are essential procedures in the process of refugee status screening. However, although the Plaintiff was a minor at full 12 years of age at the time of applying for refugee status, it constitutes a procedural illegality that the Plaintiff did not examine the Plaintiff’s unique reasons for refugee status through interview investigation even though there was no problem of communication, such as making a direct application for refugee status, etc. In addition to the Plaintiff’s assertion of substantive illegality, the Plaintiff added the Republic of Korea to the Plaintiff’s assertion of substantive illegality, demanded the Plaintiff’s house and money, which is the seated seated seated by the Plaintiff, and did not comply with it.