1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on January 25, 2016, with the status of stay C-3 (short-term visit) sojourn status of the Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Skistan”) of the Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Skistan”).

B. On April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee status with the Defendant, but on June 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition for recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize “the well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”) and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice against the instant disposition. However, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as on December 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On December 5, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that 40,000 U.S. dollars was called from an unqualified person.

On December 10, 2015, the plaintiff did not respond to this, and around December 10, 2015, the plaintiff appeared to be an instigious person, and the plaintiff demanded to return money again.

The plaintiff promised to provide money for a day only, and unfasteneded, the plaintiff went back to Eslamabd on December 13, 2015, and later went back to the Republic of Korea.

In the event that the plaintiff returns to Pakistan, its home country, there is a concern that the plaintiff may be threatened with the right to life or physical freedom from the non-party who demanded the money.

Nevertheless, this case does not accept the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status.