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 the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s determination of the assertion emphasized as the grounds for appeal and the addition under paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. In full view of the background of the establishment of the refugee system, the fact that there is a need to broad interpretation of “the status as a member of a specific social group,” which is the reason for recognition of refugee status, the subject of gambling is not limited to State agencies, and the state situation of Algeria, etc., the Plaintiff asserts that the threat that the Plaintiff was threatened may be deemed as “brue on the ground of a membership of a specific social group,” which is “b

However, even if the concept of “persecution based on the status or political opinion, which is a member of a specific social group,” as a requirement for recognition of refugee status, is more relaxed, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the damage caused by private disputes or general criminal crimes falls under “persecution based on the status or political opinion as a member of a specific social group,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. The plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to view that the plaintiff could escape from gambling by using the judicial system of the country of nationality or moving to another area.

However, only the descriptions of Gap evidence 6 and 7 (including each number) cannot be recognized as having reached the degree that it is difficult to solve the problem through alternative migration to other regions, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant disposition, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee, shall be dismissed as it is without merit.