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

On June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Pakististan") entered the Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Pakistan"), entered the Republic of Pakistan on a short-term comprehensive (C-3, 30 days) stay before the expiration of the period of stay, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on December 2, 201.

On November 21, 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 against the Defendant on December 16, 2013, but the Defendant dismissed it on May 8, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case was legitimate or not, around 2006, the plaintiff's assertion was killed to the person related to the business he/she had operated, and the offender was released from prison and threatened the plaintiff's family.

The plaintiff was under such intimidation and entered the Republic of Korea, and the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite the risk of being killed when the plaintiff returned to Pakistan. The disposition of this case is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

According to Article 2 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, the term "refugee" means a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, ethnicity, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.

However, the grounds for recognition of refugee status asserted by the plaintiff are being threatened by the deceased father, regardless of whether it is true.