1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff, a foreigner of the nationality of the Republic of Austria, entered the Republic of Korea on a short-term general visa (90 days of stay) (90 days of stay) and applied for refugee status to the Defendant on August 17, 2015.

B. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of refugee status (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where there is a well-founded fear that is a requirement for refugee status 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 appealed and filed an objection with the Minister of Justice on August 3, 2016. However, on February 24, 2017, the objection was dismissed, and the notice of rejection of the objection was served on the Plaintiff on March 6, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of this case, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit brought after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

(b) A litigation seeking revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known, and where the appeal has been made, the original copy of the written adjudication shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receiving

(1) Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the Plaintiff shall file an objection that constitutes an administrative appeal due to an objection to the instant disposition, and then receive a notice of decision of dismissal on March 6, 2017, as seen earlier. It is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2017 after the lapse of 90 days from the lawsuit.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is illegal since it was filed after the lapse of the time limit for filing the lawsuit under Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the defendant's prior defense on the merits is reasonable.

3. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is concluded.