1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On July 23, 2008, the Plaintiff first entered the Republic of Korea with the status of non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn on July 23, 2008, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on May 15, 2013, which was seven days before the expiration of the period of sojourn (E-9 May 22, 2013).

The defendant, on March 4, 2014, promulgated with sufficient grounds for gambling (the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the plaintiff on March 4, 2014

) On the ground that Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist (hereinafter “instant disposition”), a disposition for non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 14, 2014, but was dismissed on December 16, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the disposition of this case was lawful. The Plaintiff requested to leave B, a tenant of the Plaintiff in Pakistan, who owned the Plaintiff, on the ground that he entered the house. The Plaintiff demanded B to find the Plaintiff on Aug. 23, 2012 and 3 million rush, and upon refusal by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s refusal constituted a threat of murder by 4 to 5 persons from the house.

On August 28, 2013, Lesle Ban found the plaintiff's house at night, and caused the plaintiff's house to attack the plaintiff's house by total bomb and bomb, and caused the death of the son and son (D) to be injured.

As can be seen, even though there is a risk that the plaintiff would suffer from gambling when he returns to Pakistan, the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

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

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 4 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been aware of.