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 the disposition for non-recognition of refugee status rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 18, 2016, and this court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 13, 2018 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2018Nu50958, and the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 24, 2018, and the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 24, 2018. The Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2018Du59809, which was final and conclusive on January 17, 2019, but the Plaintiff’s final appeal was dismissed on January 17, 2019, is apparent or obvious in the record.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant judgment subject to a retrial, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee, should be revoked, even though the Plaintiff’s return to his home country constitutes a refugee due to the risk of gambling. 2) As the Defendant’s assertion in this case, the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits, the instant judgment on the first instance court’s judgment is unlawful.
B. When the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, it cannot institute a lawsuit for retrial against the judgment of the first instance.
(Article 451(3) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, a suit for retrial filed in the court of first instance against a judgment of the court of first instance, which is not a judgment of the appellate court, shall not be subject to retrial, and it shall be deemed an illegal suit which lacks the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da9092, Jan. 26, 2012). In the instant case, the Health Center and the first instance court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the merits of the instant case, and the fact that the Plaintiff appealed but the judgment on the merits of dismissing the appeal was pronounced is as seen earlier, the judgment of the first instance court cannot be subject to retrial, and only the appellate court’s judgment should be subject to retrial.
However, the plaintiff does not have to do so.