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 May 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 3, 2016, while entering the Republic of India for a short-term visit visa (C-3) and staying there.

B. On February 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no sufficiently-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 (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 6, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on June 12, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff resided in India’s region, and resided in India’s region. However, on April 4, 2016, the C narrow c refers to a half-year group between Ep, but it refers to an organization of anti-government organizations or armed forces in Islamic countries as well as a wide area of Ep.

The 4 lighting staff asked the Plaintiff about the way to be adjacent to the expressway and became known to the Plaintiff.

Since then, the plaintiff was immediately aware of this fact to Indian soldiers, and two of the above C trillion staff were killed by soldiers dispatched.

After that, four members of the C investigator who were killed were found to be the plaintiff's house for retaliation on April 7, 2016, but did not find the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's father was killed as the plaintiff's father was not the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff's mother was threatened with death.

Therefore, even though the possibility of gambling is high when the plaintiff returned to India, the plaintiff is recognized as a refugee.