1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”) as a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt”) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on April 22, 2015.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear that it would be prejudicial to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee Protocol”).

On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 3, 2016, but was dismissed on February 24, 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. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that refugee interview is a core investigation procedure in the process of examining refugee status applications.

However, the plaintiff's refugee interview protocol contains false statements that the plaintiff did not make any statement, and the plaintiff was omitted from questioning about the reasons for gambling stated in the application form for refugee status, and the procedure of confirmation on the contents of the refugee interview protocol was not sufficiently followed after the completion of questioning and answer.

This is because an interpreter who is not able to be able to be able to be able to be able to understand by abusing his authority.

The plaintiff's refugee interview was not properly conducted, and the refugee interview report is not prepared normally, and the disposition of this case based on this does not have a significant procedural defect, so the disposition of this case should be revoked.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) as shown in the Attachment of the relevant statutes;

B. (1) The reason why the Plaintiff wishes to apply for refugee status is now the Egypt.