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.

Ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the appeal of this case.

1. The fact of recognition is clear that the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on March 29, 2018 regarding the instant lawsuit for which the Plaintiff sought revocation of the non-recognition of refugee status stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant, and that the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on April 3, 2018, and that the Plaintiff filed an appeal for subsequent completion against the judgment of the first instance court on May 9, 2018, which was the expiration of the period of appeal for two weeks, the peremptory period, from the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. 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, “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty 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 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 conduct the litigation at a certain stage by ascertaining

In addition, the degree of the duty of care for procedural acts cannot be viewed differently solely on the ground that the foreigner is a foreigner.

B. As to the grounds for which the plaintiff had no choice but to file an appeal later, the plaintiff filed an application for refugee status without a legal representative and filed a lawsuit in the first instance court, but only speaks in English, and thus it was impossible for the plaintiff to use letters without the help of another person, and since the original copy of the judgment in the first instance court was served on the "workplace club fee" rather than the plaintiff, the plaintiff does not clearly confirm that the judgment was served.