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 court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following addition to the text of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the 4th sentence of the first instance judgment, the plaintiff argues that it is not reasonable to deny the credibility of the statement due to the lack of the plaintiff's knowledge about the doctrine of religion, or to consider the lack of consistency in the plaintiff's statement that is not related to the essential part of the definition of refugee status, because the plaintiff's specific knowledge about the applicant's religion is stipulated in the "Guidelines on International Protection" (Evidence 7) prepared by the UN Refugee (UNCLOS). Thus, the plaintiff argues that it is not reasonable to consider that the credibility of the statement should not be denied, or that it is not consistent with the plaintiff's statement that is not related to the core part of the definition of refugee status.

However, the Plaintiff is not aware of the basic contents that ought to be known as a person with a religious faith, and in addition, there is no consistency in the statement on the grounds or progress leading to the application for refugee status, such as the previous occupation or the route of entry, and thus, it cannot be neglected to the extent that there is a lack of knowledge about the doctrine of reader, or that there is a lack of scarcitys in the oral part of the statement.

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.