2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. According to the records of this case, ① the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on January 23, 2018, ② the first instance court served the instant complaint on the Defendant’s domicile (hereinafter “instant complaint”) and received it on January 30, 2018, ③ the first instance court served the Defendant a notice of the date of pleading on the date of pleading on the Defendant’s domicile but sent it on June 20, 2018, without being served due to the absence of closure, ④ the first instance court served the date of pleading on the date of pleading on July 10, 2018, and concluded the pleadings and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the same day; ⑤ the first instance court served the Defendant on July 13, 2018, but did not serve the original copy on the Defendant as a closed document, but did not serve the original copy on the Defendant on the date of pleading on the date of pleading on which the first instance court served on the Defendant on July 28, 2018 by means of service by publication.

B. According to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may subsequently complete the procedural acts within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. The term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” under the said Article refers to a cause for which the party could not comply with the relevant period even though he/she had exercised a general duty to do so for conducting the procedural acts. However, in cases where the document of lawsuit is served by means of service by public notice, while the copy, etc. of the complaint was served lawfully and the lawsuit was being served by public notice, it is different from the case where the lawsuit was conducted by public notice from the date on which the copy of the complaint was served by public notice