1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On August 30, 2005, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "Pakististan") entered the Republic of Korea with the status of industrial training (D-3) on August 30, 2005, and continued to stay in the Republic of Pakistan through the extension of sojourn period, etc. in addition to the short-term departure from the Republic of Pakistan on two occasions, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 18, 201 following the expiration of the sojourn period.

On October 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of 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 October 25, 2013, but the Defendant dismissed it on April 11, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, there was an attempt for the Plaintiff to make a container gambling stage to be used for a political party’s event while working as a member of the political party on July 2009, when the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleadings, as stated in Gap’s evidence 1-2, Gap’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 1-3, Eul’s evidence 1-2, Eul’s evidence 1, and Eul’s evidence 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and around July 2009, four persons, who were presumed to be members of the political party of the "NP," were killed by 26 persons, such as QuM supporters, by attacking and attacking oba.

The plaintiff's residence in the Kacoa City, which is the plaintiff's place of residence, continues to dispute rapidly between M QM and NP, so the plaintiff is highly likely to kill his fighting with his fighting.

Nevertheless, 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

The following are revealed in addition to the above-mentioned evidence and Eul's statement of evidence No. 5.