1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee recognition with the Defendant on January 30, 2015 while entering the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”) and staying there in the Republic of Korea as a tourism route and visa (B-2).

On February 12, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on March 6, 2015, but the said objection was dismissed on September 9, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition as indicated in Gap’s No. 1 through 3, Eul’s No. 1, and 2, has the power to arrest the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s private villages took part in the Muslim group and took part in the Muslim group, although there is no relationship with the Muslim group.

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.

Judgment

In addition to the above-mentioned facts, it is insufficient to view that there is a well-founded fear of persecution to the Plaintiff in full view of the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding the entry of No. 3 in the above-mentioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate as there is

The plaintiff was not a slick-type member, and there is no fact that the plaintiff had engaged in any political activity within Egypt.

Therefore, the possibility that the plaintiff could be stuffed for political reasons is very rare.

It is true that the Egypt government is harming the unslick-type group, but it is also the slick-type executives.