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 December 27, 2006, the Plaintiff, who was a national of Bangladesh, entered the Republic of Korea as the status of sojourn for industrial training (D-3) on December 27, 2006, returned to Bangladesh on November 25, 2009, and returned to the Republic of Korea on February 21, 2010, again entered the Republic of Korea as the status of non-professional employment (E-9), and filed an application for recognition of the first refugee with the Defendant on July 19, 2013.

B. On December 9, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to recognize refugee status to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 27, 2014, but was dismissed, and thereafter filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above refugee non-recognition disposition, but the judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on July 14, 2016.

(Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap21394, Seoul High Court 2015Nu54782, Supreme Court 2016Du37829).

On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-recognition of refugee status with the Defendant. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on October 19, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on July 18, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, 7 (including provisional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's family member, including the plaintiff's assertion, is supported by Islamic Party (Jamaat-e-Ismixi). The plaintiff joined a student organization (Jama) of Islamic Party in around 2006 and performed Islamic public relations activities. The plaintiff's first punishment was in the Kanksar whose residence is residence, and the second punishment is in general membership so far.

The plaintiff, around 2004, is running business to Muslim students at the Sindo National University.