1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) visa on December 6, 2013 as a foreigner of the nationality of Pakistan, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on April 3, 2014.

B. On December 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 30, 2014, but was dismissed on September 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a Simpatha forest that had been residing in the pressure-fababa village in the Katachi area.

On March 3, 2013, there was a bomb terrorism presumed to have been caused by Lashar-e-Equipment (Lashar-Jangvi), which is an armed organization of the Nasararism, which caused the destruction of the plaintiff's shop and the death of the plaintiff together with the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff avoided risk because it was not at the time, but at the time. However, after 2-3 months thereafter, the Plaintiff received a intimidation call stating that “it will be kills equally, as it is,” and 2 persons of Obama left the Plaintiff with a total sum of shacks, and then left the Plaintiff as “Lshsh-A-Equipment.”

The plaintiff feel a great fear of being killed, and entered the Republic of Korea after leaving his country.

If the plaintiff returns to his own country, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee even though it was likely to be imprisoned by the hydropath armed forces on the ground that the plaintiff is a Sipathic forest is unlawful.

B. (1) Determination of the Refugee Act.