1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 18, 2014, revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) entered the Republic of Pakistan (C-3) with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on a short-term basis; (b) stayed in the Republic of Pakistan upon obtaining permission for change of the status of stay for accompanying (F-3) on June 29, 2010; and (c) filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on September 7, 2012, prior to the expiration date of the period of stay ( September 29, 2012).

B. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

C. On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on April 2, 2015, and decided the Plaintiff as a humanitarian sojourn pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Refugee Act, taking into account humanitarian aspects.

On the other hand, on September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with his parent, and the Defendant rendered a disposition to recognize refugee status not only for the Plaintiff but also for the Plaintiff’s parent on March 18, 2014. The Defendant, who is the father, conducted an interview before rendering a disposition to recognize refugee status not only for the Plaintiff’s father but also for the document review. However, the Plaintiff’s mother, as the Plaintiff’s mother, did not separately conduct an interview with C and the Plaintiff, but only for the document review.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not conduct fact-finding investigations prior to the instant disposition, such as the interview procedure, and did not present the grounds under the Administrative Procedures Act at the time of the instant disposition. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff is a substantive illegal cause.