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 January 23, 2017, and on February 6, 2017, the original copy of the judgment was deemed to have been served on the Plaintiff by means of delivery of documents, and the Plaintiff filed subsequent appeal as to the judgment of the first instance on July 14, 2017, when the period for filing a subsequent appeal, which is the peremptory period, was two weeks after the Plaintiff had expired, is apparent in the record.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate since the plaintiff did not file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff, since he/she did not dispute the Korean language and became aware of the fact of the judgment of the court of first instance as well as the Korean law.

B. Determination 1) Subsequent completion of procedural acts is able to supplement the neglected procedural acts in a case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, and the "reasons for which the parties cannot be held liable" here refers to the reasons why the parties could not comply with the period despite the due care to be generally required to perform the procedural acts. However, according to the records of this case, the plaintiff voluntarily submitted the complaint of this case to the court of first instance, entered the address at the place where the documents were served, such as a notice of the date sent by the court of first instance at such address, and present at the date for pleading, and present at the date for pleading and present at the pleading, and the date for declaration was notified, and the original copy sent at such address was sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the service of the judgment sent to the address is impossible due to the absence of the closed door, and it can be recognized that the service is deemed as the service method

2.2