난민불인정결정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. We examine the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case ex officio as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case.
A. Recognizing the facts of recognition, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on April 24, 2019 regarding the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-recognition of refugee status as stated in the purport of the claim and appeal against the Defendant, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative on April 30, 2019, and the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the petition of appeal to supplement the instant case on June 20, 2019, when two weeks of appeal period, which is the peremptory term, passed from the Plaintiff’s legal representative, is apparent.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion was delivered the original copy of the judgment of the first instance by the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and then filed an immediate appeal. However, there was no time to render labor to maintain his livelihood, and there was no time to prepare the litigation cost. Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to submit the petition of appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment after the lapse of the period of appeal.
As such, the Plaintiff was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation.
C. Determination 1) The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to an administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides, “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 act in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” However, “reasons not attributable to a party” in this context refers to cases where a party is unable to comply with the period even though he/she fulfilled generally required care to conduct the litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da2083, Mar. 12, 2004; 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006; 2017Da25161, Oct. 26, 2017).