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 October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on November 23, 2015, while entering the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of Egypt nationality with the status of stay in the Tourism Department (B-2).

B. On December 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Plaintiff does not constitute “a sufficiently based fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 23, 2015, but the decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application was rendered on April 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 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 is that the Plaintiff was married as Islamic believerss, and his family members opposed to the teaching system on the grounds of religious differences, known that he was pregnant by marriage and wife, and threatened the Plaintiff.

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 by the wife's family because he was pregnant by marriage with his wife despite the opposition of the wife's family members who believe that he was sworn," and all the plaintiff's arguments are asserted.