The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff added in this court asserts that "the plaintiff cannot make the Korean and English language as a foreigner and did not comply with the filing period because he did not have an attorney at the time," such circumstance should be viewed as not a subjective circumstance of the plaintiff, but an objective circumstance, and therefore, the plaintiff should be recognized as a subsequent supplement of litigation because there is "reasons not attributable to the party" under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation

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 litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist. Here, “reasons for which the party is unable to assume his/her responsibility” refers to the grounds for which the party is unable to comply with the period despite the party’s due care to perform the litigation, although he/she had been given due care to do so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2224, Mar. 10, 1987; 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998). As cited earlier, the above grounds for the Plaintiff’s internal payment cannot be a legitimate reason for which the party cannot be held liable, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(B) The conclusion is that even if a subsequent completion of a procedural act is recognized, it is insufficient to deem the Plaintiff to have “a well-founded fear of persecution” as stipulated in Article 2 of the Refugee Act on the sole basis of the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was frighted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).