1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on October 10, 2015 with the visa exemption (B-1) status as a foreigner of Liberian nationality, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on December 11, 2015.

B. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having “a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would suffer from persecution” as stipulated in Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee”) and Article 1 of the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “Refugee Protocol”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed to the Minister of Justice on February 3, 2016, but the Minister of Justice dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on September 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. In light of the following, the Defendant’s defense that the instant lawsuit was filed in an unlawful manner against the time limit for filing a lawsuit, and thus, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff, at the latest, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of refugee status was finally dismissed through an objection filed against the Minister of Justice on September 26, 2016, and it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2017 after the lapse of 90 days thereafter, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it failed to observe the time limit for filing a lawsuit under Article 20(1

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lawsuit should be deemed lawful on the grounds that there are grounds for subsequent completion of the lawsuit, and thus, Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, is due to reasons for which the parties cannot be held responsible.