[2] In a case where a writ of summons and a written judgment are served in the manner of service by public notice after the plaintiff resigned from his/her legal representative while he/she was aware of the commencement of a lawsuit, such as the plaintiff's appearance at the party's party hearing, and it is impossible for the court to serve a writ of summons and a written judgment on the plaintiff

[2] In a case where, after the plaintiff was aware of the fact of the commencement of a lawsuit, such as the plaintiff's appearance at the party's party's questioning, his legal representative resigns, and the court served a writ of summons and a written judgment on the plaintiff himself as the date of pleading for the plaintiff himself is unable to serve, and the plaintiff served a summons and a written judgment by public notice, and the plaintiff subsequently completed the appeal period after the plaintiff exceeded the period of appeal, as long as the plaintiff was aware of the progress of the lawsuit in this case due to the defendant's appeal that the lawsuit in this case is in progress at the court below, the plaintiff is obligated to go through the legal representative or report it directly to the court, and if his address is changed, the plaintiff has a duty to report it to the court. Thus, even if the plaintiff was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to the plaintiff's de facto knowledge of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, barring any special

Article 160(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A party shall not be held liable” refers to a cause for which compliance with the period was impossible even though the party fulfilled generally required care to conduct the procedural acts. Therefore, in a case where the service of documents in the process of a lawsuit was impossible by means of service as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning to the beginning, and thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit at the court, it shall not be deemed that there was no negligence. Such obligation is to be borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date for pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading at the date for pleading, or whether the party was appointed as the legal representative at the date for pleading (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da15791, Jul. 11, 1997; 10Ma1030, Jun. 17, 1993; 2082Da36847

According to the records, while the plaintiff was appointed by the court below as a legal representative on September 12, 1996 and responded to the examination of the plaintiff himself on the 27th day of pleading of the court below. The plaintiff filed an application for the resumption of pleading on December 8, 1996. The plaintiff's legal representative on April 15, 1997 submitted a resignation system and served the writ of summons on the date of pleading as of April 24, 1997 to the plaintiff himself, his previous domicile, Seongdong-gu, Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), which was not served. The plaintiff's legal representative on July 3, 1997, which was served on the plaintiff's resident registration card as of July 19, 197, which was served on the plaintiff's legal representative on the date of pleading of the court below, and the court below did not order the summons to serve on the plaintiff on June 19, 197, and the plaintiff was also dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's legal representative was also dismissed on August 14, 19, 1997.

Therefore, as long as the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's appeal that the lawsuit in this case is continuing in the original trial, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, even though the plaintiff could not observe the period of appeal, because he could not be held responsible for it, as well as the process and result of the lawsuit, such as going through an attorney or inquiring directly the court, and if his address is changed, he shall be deemed to have a duty to report it directly to the court.

As a result, the instant appeal is filed after the peremptory period, which is the peremptory period, and it is unlawful to satisfy the requirements for subsequent completion, and it is not possible to correct the defects.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)