난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is to be stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “the person who is a party supported by the court of first instance, and who is a party supported by the court of first instance,” and the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments. Thus, it is to be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the administrative remedy procedure is insufficient from a foreigner’s standpoint, and failed to comply with the filing period due to language barriers, economic poverty, cultural rent, limitation on the collection of evidence, etc., and that this constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s filing period has been exceeded due to reasons not attributable to the Plaintiff.
Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, provides that “if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of generally required care to conduct the said litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2224, Mar. 10, 1987; 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff constituted “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” as referred to in the said provision.
Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.
3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.