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 May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on June 16, 2014, after the expiration of the period of stay (on June 13, 2014), while entering the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”) and staying in the Republic of Egypt (B-2) status as a foreigner of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”).

B. On September 23, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff joined the Muslim type group and conducted a demonstration against the former president B and C supported by the former president.

As a result, the Egypt government employed the plaintiff's husband and tried to find the plaintiff's husband and put him a great knife, the plaintiff's husband was injured by the knife, and the plaintiff's husband was found more than twice thereafter, and the people were assaulted by the plaintiff's husband with the intention of killing the plaintiff's husband every time.

In addition, on the ground that the husband of the Plaintiff joined the Unslateral Zone and conducted a demonstration against the former president from January 2, 201, the Egypt Government and the Gun Department sought to find the Plaintiff’s husband and searched the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff

After the husband's departure from the Republic of Korea, Egypt police found six times more than the plaintiff's husband's husband in the plaintiff's house on the ground that the plaintiff's husband is a Muslime group, and followed the husband's whereabouts. In telephone, the husband asked the whereabouts of the husband several times and fails to properly answer, the husband took a bath, and the first denied house search was conducted by the husband.

Therefore, the plaintiff and her husband's demonstration is a Muslim type that supports the C regime.