난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The court's explanation about this case is identical to the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff's argument under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's additional judgment is allowed to prohibit the English and French language in addition to the language of the lack of origin, and the Korean language is not almost possible, and the plaintiff did not know the objection procedure related to the application for refugee status and did not observe the period of filing a lawsuit.
Therefore, in the instant case, the period of filing a lawsuit was imposed on the grounds that the parties cannot be held responsible” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the institution of the instant lawsuit is lawful, which was subsequently filed on April 12, 2017, where such grounds cease to exist.
Judgment
Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, provides that if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist. In this context, “reasons for which the party is unable to assume his/her responsibility” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s due care to perform the litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da224, Mar. 10, 1987; 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998). In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not a legitimate reason for not being held liable to the party as referred to in the above provision, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
Furthermore, even if the completion of the litigation is recognized, the Refugee Act is applicable to the Plaintiff only to the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was fluent.