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 March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on March 12, 2015, while entering the Republic of Egypt (B-2) and staying there in the Republic of Korea on March 1, 2015, as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “ Egypt”).

B. On March 20, 2015, 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 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on May 8, 2015, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on February 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff died of 20 man due to a traffic accident, and due to this, the Plaintiff was threatened with murder from the victim’s punishment.

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 threatened with the family members of the person who died due to a traffic accident,” and even if all of the Plaintiff’s arguments are acknowledged, it is merely an issue that the Plaintiff should resolve by using the judicial system of its home country due to private threat, and such a threat is the Plaintiff.