1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a Egypt nationality, entered the Republic of Korea on April 16, 2016, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on May 13, 2016.

B. On May 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case of “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on June 24, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on the same ground as October 27, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the vehicle was driven in Egypt and caused the death of the vehicle. The Plaintiff was threatened with the death of his bereaved family members.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the plaintiff as a refugee despite high possibility that the plaintiff would be subject to gambling when he returns to the country of nationality is illegal.

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.

(Article 2 Subparag. 1) of the Refugee Act, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged, the threat of the Plaintiff’s assertion not only does not fall under gambling on the ground of “human race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a specific social group, or political opinion.”