beta
서울고등법원 2017.10.19 2017누64059

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. As to the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on April 19, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on May 26, 2017 by means of service by public notice, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion of the judgment of the first instance court on July 24, 2017, which is the peremptory period of two weeks after the lapse of the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, is apparent in the record.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not appeal within the appeal period due to the relation that the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was served by means of service by public notice, and that the plaintiff did not appeal within the final appeal period, and that the subsequent supplement of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate.

B. (1) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, provides that “if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting it within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons not attributable to a party” refers to a cause for which the party was unable to comply with the period, even though he/she had paid general attention to conduct the litigation,

(2) According to the records of this case, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted the complaint of this case, and was present on the date of the second pleading of the court of first instance, and was notified of the date of pronouncement on that date. After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered while the plaintiff was absent on the date of notification, the court of first instance sent the original copy of the judgment to the plaintiff's domicile several times, but the service of the original copy was impossible upon the plaintiff's failure to serve by public notice

In light of the progress of the lawsuit, it is necessary to do so.