1. The appeal of this case 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. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. The facts of recognition that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case with the Seoul Administrative Court 2020Gudan4690 on March 11, 2020, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on June 11, 2020. The facts that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served on the plaintiff on June 19, 2020 and that the plaintiff submitted the written appeal of this case (the name of the document is clearly called "the written appeal" or "the written appeal of this case") to the above court on July 22, 2020, when the period of appeal exceeds two weeks, which is the peremptory term.

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, who filed an application for refugee status, was aware of the error of translation of the judgment of the court of first instance when served with the original copy of the judgment, and the period of appeal was imposed.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff could not comply with the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.

C. Subsequent completion of procedural acts under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, can only be done where the parties could not comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them. Here, “reasons not attributable to the parties” refers to the grounds for which the parties could not comply with the period, even though the parties fulfilled their general duty to do the procedural acts, even though they were unable to observe the period.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998). In light of these legal principles, the Plaintiff, as a party who filed a lawsuit, is obligated to conduct litigation in accordance with the process and outcome of the litigation procedure as a matter of course as a party who has filed a lawsuit (the Plaintiff was directly present at the second date for pleading of the first instance court, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was directly served), and the grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion are attributable to the “party” as referred to in the said provision.