1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts added, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the bottom of the 3rd judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

(A) At the third bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to the following: (a) the Plaintiff was a very continuous threat, and the Plaintiff’s father did not have any intensity sufficient to die; (b) however, there is no evidence to support the claim: (c) the Plaintiff’s father did not have any strength sufficient to kill the Plaintiff; (d) the Plaintiff’s father

(The plaintiff asserts that the South African Republic is a representative human rights-related country as well as the past Pacific policy, and the security situation has also deteriorated, and in particular, it is not sufficient for judicial authorities to intervene in the problem of tradition of shortage. However, even if the South African Republic has a security unstable problem, there is no evidence to deem that the South African Republic government has reached a state where it refuses or is unable to provide effective protection to victims).

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.