물품대금
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 a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant served a duplicate of the complaint at his/her domicile (In Incheon Bupyeong-gu C and D) and submitted a summary summary dispute settlement document to the court of first instance. The Defendant served a notice of the date of pleading at the address above and served on October 24, 2017 at the first instance court’s domicile. The court of first instance notified the date of pleading following the date of pleading on December 12, 2017. (2) The court of first instance changed the date of pleading on December 2, 2017 to February 6, 2018, and served the notice of change to the said address, but did not serve the notice of change to the said address as the absence of the closed door.
3) On February 6, 2018, the Defendant was absent on the second day for pleading. The court of first instance concluded pleadings, and notified the date of pronouncement to February 20, 2018. The court of first instance served the notice of sentencing to the address above but sent the notice to the person who was not served with the director’s unknown address. (4) The court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on February 20, 2018. On the following day, the original copy of the judgment was served to the address above, but was served to the director’s unknown, and served on February 28, 2018.
5) Meanwhile, the Defendant was a director on December 27, 2017 and moved into the Republic of Korea E and 4th, but did not report the change of address to the court of first instance. The Defendant perused the records of the first instance court on September 17, 2018 and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on September 19, 2018. 【No obvious fact on the record based on recognition, the entry of the evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. The phrase “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period despite the party’s due diligence to conduct procedural acts.
The circumstances where there is no negligence in failure to observe the period of appeal due to a lack of knowledge of the pronouncement and service of judgment, shall be alleged and proved by the parties concerned who intend to complete the appeal.
Supreme Court on October 11, 2012