1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 31, 2015 while entering the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “Egypt”) and staying in the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “Egypt”).

B. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 25, 2016, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on December 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, as a member of the Muslim type group, presented his opinion on the sense of the former president, and participated in the demonstration in Egypt, and there is a risk of being threatened by the government or being arrested for this reason.

Therefore, if the Plaintiff returned to Egypt, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee is unlawful even though it is highly likely that the Plaintiff might be stuffed due to the above circumstances.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff, taking into account the facts of the above determination and the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the entire arguments, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1 It is true that Egypt government is harming the unslock group when based on objective state situation, but this is limited to the members who are engaged in active activities or non-slock group.