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.

Facts of recognition

With respect to the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on June 9, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment was received from the Plaintiff’s workplace on June 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal as to the judgment of the first instance on August 21, 2017, which was after the lapse of the period of appeal for two weeks, the peremptory term, from which the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal on August 21, 2017.

Plaintiff’s assertion

In addition, without well-known knowledge of the plaintiff's assertion in Korean language, a foreigner who is not a legal expert was unable to comply with the period required for litigation at an appropriate time.

As such, since the plaintiff could not observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him, the subsequent completion of procedural acts should be recognized.

Judgment

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, provides that “if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the reasons for which the party was unable to comply with the period, even though he/she had paid general attention

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’s litigant’

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