logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2017누76823
난민불인정결정취소
Text

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.

Reasons

1. In fact, the Plaintiff was served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on September 22, 2017 at his/her domicile. However, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal on October 10, 2017, after the lapse of the peremptory period of two weeks, which is the peremptory period, is apparent in the record.

2. Determination

A. 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 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 neglecting it 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 paid due attention to conduct

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da50152 delivered on October 2, 1998, etc.). B.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the period of appeal was lapsed due to lack of language ability to properly understand the judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff had no choice but to file an appeal later. However, it is difficult to view that the period of appeal is excessive due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, and there is no reason to view otherwise in the record that “the parties cannot be held liable for” allowing a subsequent completion of procedural acts as mentioned above.

(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 elapse of the peremptory period, and it is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.

arrow