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 August 16, 2005, the status of stay for training employment (E-8) was amended by Presidential Decree No. 20076 on June 1, 2007 by Presidential Decree No. 20076, the Plaintiff was a foreigner of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Pakic Republic”).

After entering the Republic of Korea as a status of stay on July 31, 2007, the status of non-professional employment (E-9) was changed into that of non-professional employment (E-9) and obtained permission for extension of the period of stay on several occasions, and the applicant filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on October 14, 201, past the tenth day from October 4, 201, the expiration date of the final period of stay.

B. The Defendant, on October 1, 2013, promulgated with sufficient grounds for gambling (the Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; the same applies hereinafter) to the Plaintiff.

) On the ground that Article 2 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees cannot be deemed to exist, a disposition not to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was made.

C. The Plaintiff appealed to the Minister of Justice on October 7, 2013, but the said objection was dismissed on April 11, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the father’s father in the native village threatened the Plaintiff’s father with a two-time phone call from the Plaintiff’s father, around 2011, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s father threatened the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff, who is a hydropha, will return to Pakistan, will die.”

The father of the Plaintiff did not comply with the above intimidation on September 10, 2011, but went to a vertical partner.

On the backway, it was killed by taking the total action from the Esslopic slopic slopty.

Therefore, in the event that the plaintiff returns to Pakistan, on the ground of the above religion.