1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 30, 2006, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Pakic Republic of Pakistan"), who entered the Republic of Korea and stays in the non-professional employment status (E-9) and repeated entry and departure, and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 23, 2012 immediately before the expiration of the period of sojourn (E-9).

On December 16, 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 January 21, 2014, but was dismissed on September 26, 2014.

[Based on the recognition, 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 was born and cultivated in Punja (Punja) as a Islamic bridge.

On April 2009, suicide bombomb was committed in the area where the plaintiff was residing, and due to this case, the plaintiff's three villages and private villages died.

The plaintiff testified or conducted a demonstration against the above terrorism of suicide.

On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “B”) and the Plaintiff set B’s hand in the process of disputing the issue of testimony or demonstration with respect to the aforementioned testimony or demonstration.

B threatens the plaintiff's family members to die when the plaintiff returns to Korea.

All these days occur due to the Islamic curriculum of the plaintiff, and the police of Pakistan also has no intention and ability to protect the plaintiff, who is Islamic curriculum of the Asia.

As such, the defendant is a refugee even though the plaintiff is highly likely to be injured by reason of religion when he/she returns home with Pakistan.