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

② On August 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The criminal case itself between the private persons does not meet the requirements for refugee status under the Refugee Act, and appears to be able to request the judicial authorities of the home country to protect the victim’s family when threatening the victim’s family, and may consider the threat to other areas safe in the affected country.”

③ Although the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on May 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion caused traffic accidents in Egypt and sustained injury on the bridge by the victim. The plaintiff was released from the prosecutor's office due to such traffic accident, and the plaintiff's family member was found to be the plaintiff's house and office, and caused fire and damage. Therefore, the plaintiff could not live in Egypt.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful.

3. In full view of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Refugee Act, Article 1 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and Article 1 of the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, “persecution” which serves as the requirement for recognition of refugee status should be limited to “a race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”

The Plaintiff is a threat to the victims of traffic accidents.