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

A. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Egypt, entered the Republic of Korea for the purpose of tourism (30 days of stay) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on August 6, 2015.

B. On August 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a notification of refugee status refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that is a requirement for refugee status under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees. On the same day, the Plaintiff received the said notification.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff applied for refugee status with a threat from the present government under the Muslim type group, and therefore, there is sufficient concern that the plaintiff will be stuffed when he returns home due to his own country and it is a reasonable fear. However, the disposition of this case which did not recognize it on a different premise is unlawful.

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a lawsuit filed after the lapse of the time limit for filing the lawsuit.

A revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the existence of disposition, etc. is known, and in cases of going through an administrative appeal, the original copy of a written adjudication shall be filed within 90 days from the

(Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act. The fact that the Plaintiff received a notice on the instant disposition on August 22, 2016 is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on January 17, 2017 after the lapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is illegal since it was filed after the lapse of the time limit for filing the lawsuit under Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the defendant's prior defense on the merits is reasonable.

3. Conclusion, this case.