1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of the Philippines on August 13, 2015 and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on May 16, 2017, after entering the Republic of Korea.

B. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that there is “a well-founded fear of 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”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 10, 2017, but was dismissed on December 7, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The defendant's main defense plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which he received a notice of dismissal decision of the Minister of Justice's objection. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the period of

B. In light of the determination, Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides, “The revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc.: Provided, That where the proviso of Article 18(1) is provided for in the proviso of paragraph (1) of the same Article or where the administrative agency has mistakenly notified that a request for administrative appeal may be made, or that an administrative agency may make a request for administrative appeal, the period shall be calculated from the date on which the original copy of the written ruling is served.”

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 2, the plaintiff received directly a notice of the decision to dismiss the objection made on December 7, 2017 by the Minister of Justice, and the plaintiff.