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 July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on April 21, 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 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 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 16, 2016, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on December 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 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 has caused the death of a pedestrian due to a traffic accident while serving as a taxi engineer. For this reason, the Plaintiff is threatened with the death of a victim’s bereaved family member.

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 person caused by a traffic accident is dead and is threatened with by his/her bereaved family members.” Even if all of the Plaintiff’s arguments are acknowledged, it can be deemed that the Egypt Government implied or neglected the act of persecution by a private person for the said reason due to private threats.