beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff, who is a national of Bangladesh, applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant.
B. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
C. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on February 12, 2016, but the said objection was dismissed on July 18, 2017.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The Defendant’s lawsuit on this case’s main defense is unlawful as a lawsuit filed after the lapse of the filing period.
B. Determination 1) According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 21(1) and (2) of the Refugee Act, a person who has received a decision to deny refugee status may file an objection with the Minister of Justice within 30 days from the date he/she received the notification, and the person who filed an objection shall file a revocation lawsuit within 90 days from the date he/she received the notification of the decision to dismiss the objection. 2) However, according to each of the evidence No. 2 and No. 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received the notification of the decision to dismiss the objection on August 11, 2017, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 24, 2017 at the expiration of 90 days thereafter, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has been filed with the lapse of the period
(On the other hand, according to the statement in Eul evidence 7, the plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case on August 18, 2017, but it is recognized that the lawsuit was withdrawn on October 25, 2017). Accordingly, the defendant's main defense in this case is reasonable.
3. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.