1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On November 1, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Pakistan") and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on January 30, 201, after having entered the Republic of Korea.

On January 10, 2014, 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 18, 2014, but was dismissed on September 26, 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, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings was lawful, and the Plaintiff admitted to a university located in punja Gu-Wala in 196, but re-entered in 199 after retirement.

After re-admission, the Plaintiff joined an organization called “B” (B; hereinafter referred to as “B”) that protects the democratic value within the above university and served as a regional book.

The above organization was an organization having conflict with the academic organization called "Islami Jam-e-Talba (hereinafter "IJT") which follows the Islamic fundamentalism. The plaintiff was bound to reverse the conflict among the above organizations and to leave the school again.

The Plaintiff re-admissiond in 2006, but still, conflict between B and IJT continued to be an assault against students belonging to the IJT.

Although the Plaintiff withdraws from B and does not continue to engage in B activities, the students belonging to IJT are asserting that the Plaintiff continues to engage in B activities without reliance on the Plaintiff’s oral statement, and trying to harm the Plaintiff.

As such, the Plaintiff’s political opinion is persecutiond by the IJT, and thus constitutes a refugee.