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 April 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 9, 2016 while entering the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of Egypt nationality, who had been staying in the Republic of Korea as a sojourn status of tourism Tong (B-2).

B. On February 13, 2017, 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 March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 7, 2017, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on July 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff died of another person due to a traffic accident in its home country, and on this ground, the Plaintiff was threatened with murder from the victim’s bereaved family.

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 order to be recognized as a refugee, in addition to the requirement that the applicant for refugee status has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country, the applicant has been made on the ground of “a person’s race, religion, nationality, status as a member of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The reason for the persecution alleged by the Plaintiff is that “the Plaintiff caused the death of another person due to a traffic accident, and on this ground, is threatened by the victim’s family members.” Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged, this is a private threat, and the Egypt government impliedly interferes with the act of gambling by a private person for the aforementioned reasons.