1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The details of the disposition are the Plaintiff’s nationality.

On August 20, 2016, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea for a short-term stay visit (C-3) refugee status application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 22, 2016, the date of application for refugee status recognition: (a) November 29, 2016, the decision of which was rendered on August 20, 2016; (b) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition of rejection of the decision of decision of April 21, 2017, as of the date of application for objection that the decision of which no sufficient ground for recognition of refugee status could be recognized: the fact that there is no ground for recognition of rejection of the decision of decision of the Republic of Korea as of December 20, 2016, A

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is well-known.

The Republic of Korea is a national of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Korea”).

The plaintiff was misled by the misunderstanding that he illegally implemented the so-called so-called in Egypt, and was threatened with murder from the violence assistance staff in the ubiquitous village.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in the Republic of Korea since he did not leave the Republic of Korea.

As such, the Plaintiff is well-known.

On the other hand, refugee status should be recognized because it is likely to be stuffed even if they return to Korea.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Refugee Act defines a refugee as “a foreigner who is unable to be protected 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 specific social group, or political opinion, or a foreigner who does not want to be protected, or who, due to such fear, cannot return to or does not want to return to the country in which he/she had resided before entering the Republic of Korea.” 2) In full view of the aforementioned evidence and evidence as stated in Articles 3 and 4 as well as the following circumstances, which can be known in addition to the purport of the entire arguments in Articles 3 and 4, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff “a well-founded fear on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.