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.

1. We examine ex officio whether the subsequent appeal of this case is legitimate or not, ex officio, on the determination of whether the subsequent appeal of this case is legitimate.

(a) The following facts are apparent in the record:

1) On October 23, 2019, the first instance court sentenced the judgment of the first instance court. The original of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative on October 30, 2019. (2) The Plaintiff’s legal representative filed an subsequent appeal against the first instance judgment on November 15, 2019, which was after the lapse of the period of appeal of two weeks, which is the peremptory period, from the date of service.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion was delivered by his/her attorney the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance, but there was no time to find out labor to maintain his/her livelihood, and the period of appeal has expired since it did not prepare litigation costs.

On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of the time and monetary capacity.

Since the Plaintiff could not have complied with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, the subsequent completion of procedural acts against the instant appeal ought to be recognized.

C. Determination 1) 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 act by negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” Here, “a cause not attributable to a party” refers to cases where a party is unable to comply with the relevant period despite the party’s exercise of generally required care to conduct such litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da2083, Mar. 12, 2004; 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006; 2017Da25161, Oct. 26, 2017).