1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 9, 2015, prior to the expiration date of the period of stay ( June 12, 2015), when entering the Republic of Pakistan (C-3) and staying in the Republic of Korea on a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on March 14, 2015.

B. On April 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that would be detrimental to a person’s status” as a refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Pakistan is an area that is in a state of national crisis due to the disturbance with the lelebane.

On June 17, 2014, while the Plaintiff, as a member of AWAMI TEHREEK, was aware of the corruption of the government of Pakistan and the operation of the government, the Plaintiff was present at the Raz Assembly organized by the above organization on June 17, 2014, and became a total attack from the parties of PML-N, and the Plaintiff was injured during the conflict.

In particular, for the reason that the police at the time was a demonstration against the government policy, there was an undue pressure of the assembly by spreading a total of participants at the assembly.

After that, the PML-N party members threatened the plaintiff's house to die again, and subsequently, they received intimidation from the above party members on January 2, 2015.

The plaintiff was born to the Republic of Korea due to the bomb terrorism, etc. of the bomb, and the threat of murder of the opposing member.

Therefore, the plaintiff's political gambling, especially a member of a specific social group, is highly likely to be affected by gambling.