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 November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on December 7, 2015, while entering the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “Egypt”) and staying in the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter “Egypt”).

B. On December 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that does not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Plaintiff does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on January 8, 2016, but rendered a final decision to dismiss 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 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff had caused the death of a person due to a traffic accident in Egypt, and for this reason, is threatened with murder from the victim’s family members.

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 from the family members of the person who died of a traffic accident,” and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized, it can be deemed that the judicial authorities of Egypt did not provide adequate protection due to private threats.