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 where the following is added to the fourth five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary Contents] The plaintiff, 2018, the vulnerable country index in 2018 was 9.0 points to 14 points, which is considerably higher than that of North Korea (93.2 points, 28 points) (the evidence No. 6-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 6-2 of the evidence No. 7-2 of the evidence No. 7-2 of the evidence No.1, 2) and the statistics were announced that the victims by fluor are more than those by B, an armed organization of the Islamic extremeism (in light of the evidence No. 9 of the evidence No. 9, the plaintiff is unlikely to receive protection or fair trial by public authority, and even if the plaintiff is sent to another area within the niberia, it is difficult to escape from fluoral from flasing.

However, it is difficult to expect the protection of the Austrian Government against the Plaintiff solely based on the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff.

It is difficult to deem that the plaintiff is unable to resolve the problem due to relocation to other regions.

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.