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.

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. 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, refers to the reason why a party is unable to comply with the period despite the party’s general duty of care to conduct procedural acts. In a case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by service by public notice, the case where the documents of lawsuit are served by public notice is different from the case where the documents of lawsuit are served by public notice from the delivery of the copy of the complaint at first place to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). B.

According to the records, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by stating his/her address as “B and 102 at the time of pleading,” and was present at the date of pleading and notified of the fact by the date of adjudication. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served on December 13, 2016 as the Plaintiff’s address and was served by public notice on December 13, 2016. The Plaintiff filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 17, 2017 when the period of appeal expires.

C. The plaintiff did not investigate the progress of the lawsuit despite the duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, and the plaintiff was not aware of the decision of the court of first instance.

It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the appeal period due to any cause not attributable to the Plaintiff solely on the ground that he was aware of it later.

Therefore, the appeal of this case did not meet the requirements for the completion of the litigation, and it constitutes a case where the defects cannot be corrected.

Even if the appeal of the instant case was lawful, the mere fact that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the appeal were insufficient is the Plaintiff.