체불임금(퇴직금)
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. Subsequent completion of the procedural acts of judgment as to the legitimacy of subsequent appeal is to enable the parties to supplement the procedural acts in which they were negligent within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist, in a case where the parties were unable to comply with the peremptory term due to the “reasons not attributable to the parties” (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In this context, the term “reasons not attributable to the parties” refers to the reasons why the parties were unable to comply with the said period despite the parties’ due care to conduct the said procedural acts, even though they exercised their care
Therefore, in a case where the service of documents related to a lawsuit is impossible as a result of the failure of being served by public notice in the course of the lawsuit, and the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning to the point of view, and thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit to the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence. In addition, such obligation is to be borne, regardless of whether the parties were present and present at the date of pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date of pleading after the date of pleading, or
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 Decided July 22, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the lack of knowledge of the pronouncement and service of the judgment in subsequent appeal should be proved by the parties who intend to complete subsequent appeal.
(2) The Defendant’s spouse D is served with the original of the payment order (hereinafter “the original of the instant payment order”) No. 2017 tea3095, Oct. 19, 201, 201; and the Defendant is against the said payment order (hereinafter “principal of the instant payment order”) with the aforementioned court on November 2, 2017.