1. According to Articles 425, 399(2), and 399(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, an immediate appeal shall be filed against an order of rejection of the petition for appeal by the presiding judge of the original judgment. An immediate appeal shall be filed within one week from the date the judgment was notified pursuant to Article 444(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” However, “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to cases where the party cannot comply with the period even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the litigation in general (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2083, Mar. 12, 2004). The party instituting the litigation, as a matter of course, is obligated to confirm the progress and result of the litigation procedure, and to conduct litigation in accordance with the phase of litigation, and solely on the grounds that the

2. The record reveals the following facts.

A. The Re-Appellant was issued a certificate of continuation by the court during the instant lawsuit on the merits of this case and submitted a written correction of address to the court.

B. On October 26, 2016, the re-appellant received the original copy of the lower court’s order which dismissed the petition for appeal of the instant case’s principal lawsuit, and on December 7, 2016, the period of one week immediate appeal passed thereafter, the re-appeal of this case was filed.

3. In light of the fact that the re-appellant filed a lawsuit and submitted or received the documents related to the lawsuit, the re-appellant may be deemed to have filed a lawsuit with another person's help in Korean language and performed the lawsuit. Although the re-appellant was not well aware of Korean language, if he did not look at the contents of the documents served on October 26, 2016, he/she would have been able to fully observe the period of appeal because he/she could have known the fact that the documents were to file an immediate appeal within one week from the date of being notified as an order to dismiss the petition of appeal dismissed by the re-appellant. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the re-appellant failed to observe the period of immediate appeal due to any cause not attributable to the re-appellant

Thus, the reappeal's reappeal of this case is unlawful since it was filed after the period of peremptory appeal expires, and it did not meet the requirements of subsequent completion.

4. The reappeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)