사용료
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful
A. The "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" as stipulated in Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the period cannot be observed even though he exercised general attention for conducting the pertinent procedural acts. Thus, the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion is determined based on whether the failure to observe the appeal period is due to a cause not attributable to the appellant. As such, in a case where the delivery of documents relating to the lawsuit is impossible due to a lawful service of a copy of the complaint and a writ of summons, etc. as a result of the impossibility of being served during the proceeding of the lawsuit by public notice, if it is inevitable by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served with a copy of the complaint and the date of pleading, etc., the defendant was aware that the lawsuit was filed by public
Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant did not know that the judgment against the defendant was pronounced.
Even if there is negligence, it is reasonable to view that there is negligence.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu224, Mar. 10, 1987)
B. According to the records of this case, the defendant was served with a duplicate of the complaint on October 19, 2018, and submitted a written response on November 6, 2018 and March 15, 2019, and the first instance court was present on the second date for pleading on May 1, 2019, and the first instance court was notified on May 22, 2019 after the closing of pleading on the second date for pleading and the date of pronouncement was notified on May 22, 2019, but changed the date of pronouncement on May 17, 2019 to June 12, 2019. The first instance court revoked the ruling of recommending reconciliation because the above ruling of recommending reconciliation was not served on the defendant, but the first instance court served on the defendant on May 29, 2019, and the first instance court was not served on the plaintiff on June 12, 2019, and the defendant was not served with the original copy by public notice.