beta
(영문) 대법원 2017.04.07 2016두65374

난민불인정결정취소

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant appeal.

Subsequent completion of procedural acts as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act may be made in cases where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to

In this context, "reasons for which the parties cannot be responsible" refers to cases where the parties could not comply with the period even though they fulfilled their duty of care to conduct the procedural acts.

Therefore, in a case where it is inevitable to serve documents in the process of a lawsuit by public notice as a result of the impossibility of serving documents in the process of the lawsuit, the parties have the duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, since it is different from the case by public notice from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit to the court

In addition, such obligations are to be borne, regardless of whether the parties have attended and present at the date of pleading, whether they have been notified of the date of pleading following the date of pleading present at the meeting, or whether they have appointed an attorney.

(2) According to the records, the Plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal against the Plaintiff on October 2, 1998 (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998). The record reveals that the Plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal against the Plaintiff by appointing an attorney at the court of first instance and being ruled against him/her in the lawsuit. The Plaintiff was present at the court below’s date for pleading on September 28, 2016 after serving a notice of the date for pleading, etc. at the Busan Seo-gu, Busan, which is the domicile indicated in the petition of appeal, and the court below issued an order for service by public notice when it was impossible for the Plaintiff to serve the judgment upon his/her domicile due to the addressee’s unknown address. The written judgment of the court below was announced on Oct. 26, 2016 and served on Nov. 10, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s two weeks later than December 5, 2016.