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. The court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on August 24, 2018 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 on September 21, 2018 by means of service by public notice, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the petition of appeal of this case on October 11, 2018, where the period of appeal for two weeks, which is the peremptory term, has expired from the Plaintiff.

B. 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 procedures neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” However, “reasons not attributable to the party” in this context refers to cases where the party is unable to comply with the period even though he/she had exercised a general duty to do so for conducting the litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da2083, Mar. 12, 2004; 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 206; 2017Da25161, Oct. 26, 2017; 2018Da18444, etc.). The party instituting the lawsuit, as a matter of course, was served at the date for pleading of the Plaintiff’s first instance and its entire statement.