1. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition revoking refugee status recognition made against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis (C-3) stay status as a foreigner of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “Pakic Republic”), and was staying for extension of the sojourn period on June 29, 2010, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on September 7, 2012.

B. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 17, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on April 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., procedural illegality is unlawful since the Defendant did not undergo an interview under the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same) and the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24628, Jun. 21, 2013; hereinafter the same) prior to rendering the instant disposition.

Shedic illegal causes and the family members of the plaintiff and the plaintiff have been married to the German subject during their stay in Korea. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the family members of the plaintiff have been threatened by the families of Pakistan Musstan and their home countries residing in Korea.

Therefore, in the event that the Plaintiff returned to Pakistan, the instant disposition, which was taken on a different premise, is unlawful, even though it is likely that the Plaintiff might be stuffed from the shot of its own country on the grounds of its opening.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination is based on Article 76-2(1) of the former Immigration Control Act, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act.