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

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on December 2, 2010, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on February 24, 2011, after having entered the Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “Sskistan”).

B. On January 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be prejudicial to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 3, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on September 26, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and his family members consist of 30% of hydrobra village, where the Plaintiff was living in hydroblue forest, and 70% of Simpha.

around 2009, the Plaintiff was assaulted on the ground that he did not repent from 5-6 on the ground that he did not repent from 5-6 on the part of oppy, and even around May to June 2010, there was a son who was assaulted with oppy and opporte.

Along with the fact that the Plaintiff’s child is an executive officer of Abdominium, there is a threat to the Plaintiff’s small mother that “I will die if I return to the Plaintiff.”

Therefore, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s return to Pakistan is likely to be harmful for the said reasons.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statements in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the judgment was submitted by the Plaintiff and all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.