1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

According to the final records of the judgment subject to review, the following facts are recognized:

On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 2017Gudan25475) seeking the revocation of a refugee non-recognition disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on March 29, 2016, but the court of first instance rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 17, 2017.

Although the plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on December 21, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial.” Although the Plaintiff filed a final appeal against it, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around that time pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du31344, Apr. 12, 2018) rendered on April 12, 2018.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Although the Plaintiff is a refugee under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Refugee Act, the judgment subject to a retrial in this case erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing.

Judgment

A lawsuit on a retrial on a final judgment rendered in an administrative litigation shall be permitted only when there are grounds for retrial stipulated in the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, if the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute such grounds, the lawsuit on

The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff do not constitute any grounds for retrial listed in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

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