The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for refugee status with the Defendant. On January 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On November 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 14, 2019.

(Seoul Administrative Court 2018Gudan21265). (c)

Although the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 21, 2019.

(Supreme Court Decision 2019Nu38122, hereinafter referred to as "Supreme Court Decision") d.

In other words, the Plaintiff appealed against the original judgment, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s final appeal on September 10, 2019 (Supreme Court Decision 2019Du45708), and the original judgment became final and conclusive.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff would be stuffed on the ground that he/she believed that he/she would be in a Chinese society, and thus constitutes a refugee. As such, the Plaintiff could not attend a court due to changes in his/her domicile, and thus, the Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to

B. Where a lawsuit for retrial was filed by asserting that it does not constitute grounds for retrial under the law, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful and thus ought to be dismissed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307 delivered on October 25, 1996). It is clear that the ground alleged by the Plaintiff does not constitute any ground for retrial under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. According to the conclusion, the instant lawsuit is dismissed.