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 February 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay for visa exemption (B-1) from February 17, 2016, and applied for refugee recognition to the Defendant on April 29, 2016.

B. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to recognize refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that the Plaintiff would be subject to persecution” as a requirement of refugee under Article 1 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on July 18, 2016, but the objection was dismissed on October 27, 2016, and the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal decision on November 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant, which judged on the previous defense of the merits, deems the lawsuit of this case unlawful as it had been filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

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 of non-recognition of refugee status may file an objection with the Minister of Justice within 30 days from the date he/she receives such notification, and a person who has filed an objection shall file a lawsuit for cancellation within 90 days from the date he/she

The instant lawsuit is unlawful due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, since it is apparent that the Plaintiff was filed on August 18, 2017 after the lapse of 90 days from November 30, 2016, when the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal decision on the Plaintiff’s objection.

The plaintiff argues that since the plaintiff could not observe the period of litigation due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff, it should be recognized as a subsequent completion of litigation. However, Article 173 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis to administrative litigation cannot be responsible to the parties.