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

A. On February 18, 2017, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the People’s Republic of China’s nationality, entered the Republic of Korea with the Tourism Tong (B-2) sojourn status on February 18, 2017, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on January 14, 2016.

B. On May 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff raised an objection to the Minister of Justice on July 4, 2016, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on October 27, 2016.

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

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

A. The Defendant’s defense that the instant lawsuit was unlawful as not complying with the period for filing the lawsuit. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 5, the Plaintiffs may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant received a notice of decision on filing the objection from the Defendant on November 3, 2016, and it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 22, 2017 after the lapse of 90 days from the date of filing the lawsuit. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it fails to comply with the period for filing the lawsuit under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.

B. The plaintiff did not know the fact that the plaintiff is not capable of Korean language and is not a legal expert, and therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that the plaintiff should comply with the plaintiff's filing period. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case should be deemed lawful on the grounds that there are subsequent grounds for supplementation. Therefore, it is applied mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation.