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 October 26, 2004 for the first time and repeated entry into and departure from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Pakic Republic”).

On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis (C-3) stay status until June 30, 2013 as the final non-professional employment status (E-9) sojourn status after changing the sojourn status and extending the period several times.

B. On May 29, 2013, when the period of stay expires, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of refugee with the Defendant.

The defendant, on March 6, 2014, promulgated with sufficient grounds for persecution (amended by Act No. 11298, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the plaintiff on March 6, 2014

) 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. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 31, 2014, but the said objection was dismissed on December 16, 2014.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Pakistan on December 29, 2014 and stays in Pakistan as of the date of the closing of the instant argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On December 15, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion that she was kidnapped to the Plaintiff’s his/her father on December 15, 2012, and then demanded USD 60,000 to the Plaintiff’s imprisonment residing in Pakistan to release, and the Plaintiff paid the money at his/her request.

However, it still calls the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff’s punishment and threatens the Plaintiff to pay money.

Therefore, in the event that the plaintiff returns to Pakistan, it is likely to be stuffed by the Leak-in.