1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 9, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on November 14, 2014 while entering and staying in the Republic of Chicago (hereinafter referred to as "Capho") for a visa studying abroad (D-2) on March 9, 2010.

On July 10, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 24, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as December 14, 2015, and the said dismissal decision was notified to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as stated in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the plaintiff joined the political party B on May 26, 1990 and participated in activities such as election campaign, political enlightenment, etc. as the representative of Eul branch at high altitude.

In addition, on September 20, 2014, the Plaintiff had an interview with the reporter and the reporter of the newspaper, criticized the government's reading and corruption, and was arrested on the police on the same day. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that mercs should be sealed by the radio broadcast, but was arrested immediately after the broadcast.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in case the plaintiff returned to Kamera.

Judgment

In light 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 following circumstances, which can be seen when adding the respective descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 10 (including various numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the disposition of this case by the Defendant is lawful since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff from May 26, 1990.