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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The reasoning for this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiff asserts that if he returns to Egypt, who is a nationality state, the plaintiff's wife, and the plaintiff's wife, are the assistant of Egypted Egypt, a well-founded fear of persecution from the opposite forces is recognized.

The plaintiff did not present any evidence supporting his/her claim in addition to the notice of disposition issued by the Ministry of Justice in the first instance and the trial.

In addition, even if the plaintiff's assertion is considered, it cannot be said that the situation was revealed to the extent that it could serve as the basis for refugee recognition.

In addition, in full view of the Plaintiff’s entry route, details of the application for refugee status, etc., there is no sufficient fear to deem that the Plaintiff is likely to be detrimental on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political opinion.

According to this, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion as above.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed because it is without merit.