1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on December 10, 2014, while entering the Republic of Pakistan (C-3) and staying in the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) visa on October 23, 2014.

On October 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on November 19, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on March 23, 2016.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s family members asserted as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition as stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the Plaintiff’s family members asserted as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate. The Plaintiff’s family members threatened the Plaintiff on the ground that the lebane, who was the opposite party, was arrested.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though the possibility that the plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances is high in the case that the plaintiff returned to Pakistan.

Judgment

In addition to the above-mentioned facts, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding the entry of No. 3 in the above-mentioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate as there is

원고는 파키스탄에 거주할 당시 탈레반의 눈에 띌만한 중요한 정치적 활동을 한 사실이 없다.

Therefore, there is almost little possibility that the lelebanes may harm the plaintiff's gambling for political reasons, and in fact the plaintiff was threatened by telephone from the lebanes in addition to the threats by telephone.