난민불인정결정취소
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs entered the Republic of Korea on September 16, 2007 with the status of stay in short-term visits (C-3) on February 28, 2016, while Plaintiff 2 entered the Republic of Korea on September 16, 2007, and applied for recognition of refugee status to the Defendant on February 22, 2017.
B. On March 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status on the grounds that the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have a well-founded fear that they would suffer from persecution as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the lawsuit
A. The Defendant’s defense that the instant lawsuit was unlawful as a lawsuit in which the period for filing the lawsuit was not observed, and according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading in the evidence Nos. 4 and 8, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiffs received a notice of decision on non-recognition of refugee status from the Defendant on March 21, 2017. The instant lawsuit is apparent on the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on September 8, 2017 after the lapse of 90 days from that date. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it fails to observe the period for filing the lawsuit as stipulated under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.
Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.
B. The plaintiffs asserted that the lawsuit in this case is lawful on the grounds that the plaintiff was unable to observe the filing period due to the lack of knowledge in Korean language. Thus, Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, provides that if the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, they may supplement the litigation by neglecting within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.