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 June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 29, 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 August 9, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition that does not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently based fear that she would be injured” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 31, 2016, but rendered a final decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application on December 22, 2016.

[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. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was sentenced to imprisonment due to the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain a loan from the bank of his own country.

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 Plaintiff is under threat because it was unable for the Plaintiff to repay its loans,” and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged, this is a private threat so long as there is no evidence suggesting that the Egypt Government implied or neglected an act of gambling for the said reason, it shall be resolved by using the judicial system of its own country.