1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is a Pakistan-based foreigner.

On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for refugee status to the Defendant.

On December 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to recognize refugee status on the ground that “a well-founded fear of persecution” against the Plaintiff is not recognized.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff’s assertion is likely to pose a threat against lelebs on the grounds that the Plaintiff operated music and film CD stores, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to, or does not want to return to, the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.

(No. 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, which is the requirement for recognition of refugee status, refers to “any act causing serious infringement or discrimination on essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom,” and the fact that there is a “comfortable fear” subject to such persecution should be attested by a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du14269, Mar. 10, 2016). In the event that the Plaintiff returns to a country of nationality, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group or political opinion.

The plaintiff's argument itself is boomed on the ground of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group or political opinion.