1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea and application for refugee recognition - Nationality: Pakistan - Entry: December 26, 2015 (Status of Sojourn: C-3) - Application for refugee recognition: April 18, 2017

B. Defendant’s decision to recognize refugee status as of April 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”): The ground for recognition does not constitute “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1568, Apr. 24, 2017)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is subject to intimidation from Islamic Saz. as Islamic Saz., and thus, the Plaintiff is highly likely to suffer persecution in the event that the Plaintiff returns to Pakistan. This constitutes a well-founded promulgation.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “refugee” refers to a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a stateless foreigner who, owing to such fear, is unable to return to, or does not want to return to, the country in which he/she resided before entering the Republic of Korea.

(No. 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act, which is a requirement for recognition of refugee status, refers to “any act causing serious infringement or discrimination on essential human dignity, including threats to life, body, or freedom,” and the fact that there is a “comfortable fear” subject to such persecution must be attested by a foreigner who files an application for recognition of refugee status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14378 Decided April 25, 2013). The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff, which were acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, in the statement of evidence No. 4 as follows.