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. The Plaintiff’s legal representative of the first instance court, who dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 25, 2018, served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal on June 21, 2018, which was the expiration of the peremptory period of two weeks, is apparent in the record.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case is lawful, since he did not know the Korean language well and did not have English language, and he did not have sufficient time to work as a foreign worker to maintain his livelihood as a foreign worker, and the costs of the lawsuit could not be promptly prepared. Thus, the plaintiff later filed an appeal. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this case constitutes a case where the plaintiff could not comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the party.

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, “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 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 the party had exercised generally required care to conduct the litigation

(2) A party who filed a lawsuit is obligated to verify the progress and result of the litigation procedure and conduct litigation in compliance with the phase, and solely on the ground that the party is a foreigner, the level of the duty of care concerning the litigation does not vary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2016No876, Apr. 11, 2017). As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned circumstance is a practical obstacle from the Plaintiff’s standpoint.

Even if such circumstances alone do the above legal act of litigation.