1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff, a Chinese national, applied for refugee status to the Defendant.

B. On April 12, 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.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 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 not to recognize refugee status shall file an objection with the Minister of Justice within 30 days from the date he/she received the notification, or file a lawsuit for cancellation within 90 days from the date he/she became aware of such disposition. 2) However, according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received a notice of decision not to recognize refugee status on April 21, 2016, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on November 10, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days thereafter. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed with the lapse of the period of

3. As to this, the plaintiff did not know that the period of filing a lawsuit is not sufficient to understand the Korean language and English, and the plaintiff did not know that there was a period of filing a lawsuit, but he could not file a lawsuit after the lapse of the period of filing a lawsuit because he worked in an inferior working environment as a foreign worker. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that it constitutes a case where the party could not observe the period of filing

However, the ground for the plaintiff's assertion is merely an individual circumstance of the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff should generally be required.