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 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with a short-term visit (C-3) status on February 20, 2014, and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on February 27, 2014.

B. On September 18, 2015, 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 November 26, 2015, but the objection was dismissed on March 24, 2016, and the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal decision on May 27, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 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 December 23, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days from May 27, 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, which applies mutatis mutandis to administrative litigation, is not a party responsible.