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.

1. On June 29, 2017, the legal representative of the Plaintiff was served with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 29, 2017, at his domicile. However, the fact that the legal representative of the Plaintiff and the mother of the legal representative filed the instant appeal on July 19, 2017 after the lapse of two weeks of appeal period, which is the peremptory term, is apparent in the record

2. The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to an administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides, “Where 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 neglecting his/her duty within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, “reasons not attributable to a party” refers to a cause for which the party was unable to comply with the period, even though he/she had exercised generally

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998). However, the legal representative of the Plaintiff did not make any specific assertion as to the grounds for which the Plaintiff had to file an appeal late, and there are no other grounds for allowing a subsequent completion of the said legal act on the record.

(2) The court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim even if the appeal of this case was lawful, is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is not justified). 3. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this case is filed after the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, has expired, and it is unlawful to satisfy the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts. Thus, it is so decided as