1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. During the process of the disposition, the following facts are: (a) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognizing the rejection of the decision made on October 27, 2016 of the date of the application for refugee status recognition (B-2) on December 25, 2012, and (b) refugee status recognition application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on January 15, 2016; (b) the date of the application for refugee status recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (c) there is no ground for recognizing the rejection of the decision made on October 27, 2016 on July 28, 2016; (d) there is no ground for recognizing the rejection of the decision made on October 27, 2016; (e) Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 1, 2, and 4; and (e) the overall purport

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a national of the Republic of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as "Egypt") of Egypt (hereinafter referred to as "Egypt") and Cgyptian.

The Plaintiff was threatened by the unslateral colon on the ground that he believed the helicopters in Egypt, and entered the Republic of Korea regardless of the damage Egypt.

In addition, the plaintiff has been engaged in missionary activities from early 2015 after entering the Republic of Korea.

In 2016, Egypt, Egypt, Egypt, took photographs of the plaintiff's mission activity site, and among them, Egypt staff was also Egypt staff.

If most of the citizens return to Egypt, the Plaintiff is likely to be stuffed for religious reasons, and thus, the Plaintiff should be recognized as a refugee.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines a refugee as “a foreigner who is unable or does not want to be protected by the country of nationality due to well-founded fear to recognize that he/she may be injured on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or who is a stateless foreigner who, due to such fear, is unable or does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea.” 2) The aforementioned evidence and Eul’s statement in the evidence No. 3 can be seen as being obtained by adding the whole purport of pleading to the statement in the evidence No. 3.