beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.06.24 2020구단49

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff, who is a national of the Republic of India, entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term stay status (C-3) on a short-term basis, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on October 19, 2017.

B. On November 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the grounds for applying for recognition of refugee status as alleged by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff does not constitute “a sufficiently-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed by Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Convention”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on December 18, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on February 14, 2019.

On February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal decision of the above objection and filed the instant lawsuit on January 3, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case before the Defendant’s merits is unlawful since 90 days have passed since the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal of the Minister of Justice on the Defendant’s non-recognition of refugee status.

B. In light of the determination, Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides, “A revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc.: Provided, That where the proviso of Article 18(1) is provided or other claims for administrative appeal are possible, or where the administrative agency falsely notifies that a request for administrative appeal may be filed, the period of time when the written adjudication is filed shall be counted from the date when the authentic copy of the written adjudication is served.”

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is the Minister of Justice.