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.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff’s argument in the first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was not in compliance with the period of filing the lawsuit because he did not properly express his English or Korean language in addition to the local language of Pakistan as a foreigner of the nationality of Pakistan. Therefore, there are justifiable grounds in the decision of the period of filing the lawsuit.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation for judgment, provides that if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts conducted within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of generally required care to conduct the procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2224, Mar. 10, 1987; 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998). In addition, the Plaintiff’s internal defense is merely the Plaintiff’s personal circumstance and cannot be a legitimate reason for which the party under the said provision cannot be held liable. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(B) The first instance judgment is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the following grounds: (a) even if a subsequent completion of a procedural act is recognized, it is not sufficient to view that the Plaintiff has “a well-founded fear of persecution” as prescribed in Article 2 of the Refugee Act on the sole basis of the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was frighten.