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 July 11, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on May 3, 2016 while entering the Republic of Korea for non-professional employment (E-9) status as an alien of Bangladesh nationality.

B. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized “ sufficiently based fears that would be detrimental to persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 1, 2016, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on April 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from around 1988, the Plaintiff joined the National Geographicalist Party (hereinafter “BNP”) and took part in the activities as the Vice-Speaker of the BNP. On August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the wind that is held at the same place as the events of BNP and the commemorative events of the ABP representative of the BNP; (b) on the wind that is held at the same place, ABP members including the Plaintiff interfere with the progress of BNP’s events; and (c) assaulted BNP members including the Plaintiff.

Therefore, if the Plaintiff returned to Bangladesh, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee, is unlawful even if it is highly likely that the Plaintiff would be stuffed from Arabicg because it is a party member of BNP.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding up the above facts of recognition and the purport of the evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1 at home country BNP.