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

A. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “Russia”), entered the Republic of Korea as the status of stay for visa exemption (five days in the period of stay).

B. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant. On January 23, 2017, 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 the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution, which is a refugee requirement under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff borrowed a large amount of money from Russia, and the creditor got to flee by assault and intimidation on the ground that he does not repay money, and therefore, there is sufficient concern that he will receive gambling when he returns to Russia, and this is a reasonable fear, but the disposition of this case which did not recognize it on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) A litigation seeking revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known, and where the appeal has been made, the original copy of the written adjudication shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receiving

(1) According to Article 20(1)1 and 20(1)2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, it is evident that the Plaintiff received a notice of decision to dismiss an objection on January 25, 2017 after the Plaintiff filed an objection that constitutes an administrative appeal due to an objection to the instant disposition, and it is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017, after the lapse of 90 days thereafter.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the time limit for filing the lawsuit under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3.