난민불인정결정취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 10, 2017. This court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 25, 2018 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). The fact that the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on August 18, 2018 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal by both the Defendant and the Defendant is apparent or obvious in the record.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. 1) The instant judgment subject to retrial, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee, should be revoked, even if the Plaintiff’s return to his home country constitutes a refugee due to the risk of gambling. 2) The grounds alleged by the Defendant Plaintiff do not constitute grounds for retrial, and thus, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.
B. We examine the judgment, and the lawsuit for a retrial on the final and conclusive judgment is permitted only when there are grounds for retrial stipulated under the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, if the grounds for a retrial do not constitute such grounds, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.
(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion in this case does not constitute grounds for retrial under any of the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the lawsuit of this case.