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

A. On December 3, 2008, the Plaintiff, a national of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “Pakic Republic”), was staying in the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn status on December 3, 2008, and was staying illegally before the expiration date ( December 3, 2009), and was staying in the Republic of Pakistan upon obtaining permission for change of sojourn status on October 23, 2014 (G-1), and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on December 3, 2014, prior to the expiration date of the period of sojourn ( December 4, 2014).

B. On December 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that would be subject 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.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Pakistan is a state of national crisis due to the bomb terrorism, etc. of the bomb.

In this situation, on November 2014, the Plaintiff was threatened by a member of a terrorist group in the Asia-Pacific Department to demand money from him/her, but he/she was threatened to die. However, the Plaintiff reported to the police, but did not take any measure.

After all, the members of the above terrorist group were forced to break away and threaten the plaintiff over several times, and the family was threatened between the plaintiff and the non-resident, and the family was forced to leave the different place.

Since the Plaintiff left the Republic of Pakistan due to such a state of warfare and intimidation from a terrorist terrorist group as above, it constitutes a long-term refugee who is highly likely to be imprisoned on the ground of political gambling, in particular, the status of a member of a specific social group.

Nevertheless, on a different premise, the Defendant did so.