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.

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

1. As to the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on September 6, 2016 by means of service by public notice, and the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal regarding the judgment of the first instance on October 21, 2016, which was after the lapse of the period of appeal of two weeks, which is the peremptory period, the peremptory period, from the Plaintiff. This is obvious in the record.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not submit an appeal within the appeal period due to the plaintiff's lack of Korean language as a foreigner, and the mother language is insufficient to have much English history, and that the plaintiff did not know about the guidance about the legal procedure in English of the interpreter in the first instance trial at the court without learning from the legal system of the Republic of Korea. The plaintiff did not know about the guide about the English language of the interpreter in the first instance trial at the court. The plaintiff did not know about the documents actually delivered by the court. The plaintiff did not appeal within the appeal period because he did not know about the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and the appeal of this case was lawful.

B. 1) The subsequent completion of the litigation is able to complete the neglected litigation in a case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, and the "reasons for which the parties cannot be held liable" here refers to the grounds for not being able to comply with the period despite the parties' due diligence to do the litigation in general. However, according to the records of this case, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted the complaint of this case, entered himself in his domicile at the place of service, and thereafter, served it to the court of first instance.