1. On August 24, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-recognition of refugee status against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”) as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”) and filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on February 27, 2015 after the expiration of the period of stay (B-2).

On August 24, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that it would be prejudicial to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the “Refugee Protocol”).

On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 13, 2016, but was dismissed on December 22, 2016.

On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received a notice of decision to dismiss an objection.

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

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. In the process of examining refugee status applications, refugee interview is a key investigation procedure.

However, the plaintiff's refugee interview protocol contains false statements that the plaintiff did not make any statement, and the plaintiff was omitted from questioning about the reasons for gambling stated in the application form for refugee status, and the procedure of confirmation on the contents of the refugee interview protocol was not sufficiently followed after the completion of questioning and answer.

This is because an interpreter who is not able to be able to be able to be able to be able to understand by abusing his authority.

The plaintiff's refugee interview was not properly conducted, and the refugee interview report is not prepared normally, and the disposition of this case based on this does not have a significant procedural defect, so the disposition of this case should be revoked.

B. The question of “B” and “C” to which the Plaintiff belongs.