1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The circumstances leading up to the decision to recognize refugee status: (a) the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) on August 31, 2016 as a second student of the nationality of Pakistan; and (b) on September 26, 2016, filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on the ground of “constition of Islamic curriculum” on September 26, 2016.

② On November 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff does not constitute a refugee as prescribed by the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Act.”

③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on September 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is a Islamic bridge, which is the plaintiff's entry into the Republic of Korea by intimidation from Islamic bridge in Pakistan, but the problem at present has been resolved.

However, the plaintiff is a dual national who originally acquired the nationality of Pakistan as a nationality of Pakistan, and the citizen right of Pakistan should expire in 2020 and return to Pakistan. However, since the plaintiff had worked in the military unit in the military unit in the military area of Pakistan, it can not be threatened by the APistan because the plaintiff could not live in the APistan because it could be threatened by the APistan.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. As to the assertion on (i) First, as to the threat in Pakistan.

In light of the following circumstances, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including paper numbers) as a whole, the plaintiff does not seem to be a person who has a fear that the plaintiff may be injured from Islamic islands in Pakistan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.