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 February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 20, 2017, while entering the Republic of Egypt (B-2) and staying there in the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “ Egypt”).

B. On March 31, 2017, 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 April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on April 14, 2017, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on July 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 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 is support for the Muslim type, and the Plaintiff was arrested several times in his/her home country on this ground, and even if he/she returned to Egypt, there is a risk of being threatened by the government or being arrested.

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 full view of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff, taking into account the above facts of the recognition and the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 9 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

1 It is true that Egypt government is harming the unslock group when based on objective state situation, but it is limited to the members of Egypt and active activities by Egypt executives.