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, in the event that he returns to Egypt in the trial, the plaintiff is placed in a situation where he could be threatened with his life from members of the Egypted Egypt group that is a terrorist organization, and therefore, the plaintiff has repeatedly acknowledged a well-founded fear in the country of nationality.

However, in full view of the state circumstances of Egypt, the Plaintiff’s entry route, the number of entry into Korea, and the details of the application for refugee status acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court cited earlier, it does not seem that there is a sufficient well-founded fear to deem that the Plaintiff is likely to be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group, political opinion, etc.

It can not be said that the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone was revealed that there was an imminent situation to the extent that it can be used as the basis for recognizing refugee status.

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.