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 July 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant on August 28, 2017, while entering the Republic of Korea as a tourism club (B-2) sojourn status on July 30, 2017.

B. On August 30, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not recognizing the Plaintiff as a refugee (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in the Refugee Act and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.

C. On September 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on September 6, 2017, but rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on March 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is threatening to refuse to testify in his own country upon the request of the perpetrator’s child to give favorable testimony in favor of the perpetrator’s child.

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 persecution alleged by the Plaintiff is that “the Plaintiff was threatened by being asked for testimony favorable to the suspect’s family member of the murder case,” and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged, it is a private threat by the Egypt government for the said reasons.