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

The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Pakistan on April 19, 2012 and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on April 25, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, the Defendant issued a non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no “probably-founded fear of persecution” (see Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees; Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on February 6, 2014, but was dismissed on September 30, 2014, and was notified of the dismissal decision on December 23, 2014.

[Based on recognition, the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings is legitimate. The plaintiff joined a political party "Pakistan T-e-investmentsaf" (hereinafter referred to as "PTPP") as a person born and cultivated in the Pakistan puna Sana or Sanab, around July 2007.

On January 19, 2009, the Plaintiff had completed the annual conference of the PTPP and returned back to the house, and was subject to total attack and assault from the name of a party member belonging to the "Pakist L-N" (hereinafter "PL-N"), who was a hostile political party to the "PL-N value"-Nawz (hereinafter "PL-N"), and was committed on March 9, 2009 from the members of the political party belonging to the PL-N, who was working at the computer store of the sentence on March 9, 2009. On February 13, 2010, the Plaintiff was abused from the members of the political party belonging to the PL-N at the place near the above computer.

The Plaintiff reported to the police on the case of January 19, 2008 and March 9, 2009, but did not investigate the perpetrator due to the relationship between PML-N and the female party with the right of collection.

As such, the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee even though it is highly likely that the plaintiff might be stuffed on the grounds of political opinion.