1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a part of judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

In addition, according to the UN Refugee Agency’s “Standards and Procedure Manual for Recognition of Refugee Status” prepared by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the applicant does not express his/her political opinions yet, if it is reasonable to deem the applicant to be in conflict with the authority as a result, he/she may be informed of his/her political opinion. It is not necessary to prove that the applicant asserts that he/she would be subject to gambling on the grounds of political opinion, and that the applicant has been aware of his/her opinion from the government agency before leaving his/her country of origin. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff as a party member of the Republic of Korea, as a party, is a government-invested party, who was actively engaged in political activities, such as leading the president of the D branch and organizing discussions, etc., and that, if the Plaintiff returned to Kamer, it is obvious that the government would conflict with the government authority if he/she returned to Kamera, and thus, there is a possibility for booming.

However, as seen earlier, even if the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff joined the C Party is difficult to believe, and even based on the statement No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleading, the plaintiff's statement that can be recognized by the statement No. 3, the plaintiff mainly worked for the business, and became the vice-chairperson of the D branch in 2011, and he was engaged in various political activities, and his political activities were all discussed about the recruitment of members and the situation at the time. Thus, if the plaintiff returned to the Kamera, his political opinion may conflict with the Kamera authorities by expressing his political opinion.