1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status on May 21, 2014, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on August 2, 2017.

B. On September 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a well-founded fear that would be subject to persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 1 of the Refugee Protocol.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Minister of Justice on October 23, 2017, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the objection on March 21, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Class A evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation suit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when the existence of a disposition is known, and where a request for administrative appeal is possible, the period at the time when the request for administrative appeal is filed shall be counted from the date when the original written

According to the foregoing macroscopic evidence, the Plaintiff filed an objection that constitutes an administrative appeal due to objection to the instant disposition, and received a notice of decision to dismiss the objection on April 25, 2018. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 25, 2018 after the lapse of 90 days from the date is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the period of filing the lawsuit expires.

3. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.