Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

(a) The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this Court:

1) On February 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On February 28, 2019, the duplicate of the instant complaint was served as “Seopo City C,” which is the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant’s employee D received this. The subsequent notice was served on May 1, 2019 by the first instance court’s notice of the date for pleading was served as the same address and received by the Defendant E, who is the Defendant’s employee. (2) On May 22, 2019, the designated date for pleading was the date for pleading, and the first instance court concluded the pleadings, closed the pleadings, and sentenced the same date on the same day.

On May 24, 2019, the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant's address, but it was impossible to serve the original copy due to the director's unknown, service by public notice on June 12, 2019, and the service by public notice became effective on June 27, 2019.

3) On September 16, 2019, 14 days after the date of entry into force of service by public notice of the original copy of the judgment, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the first instance court on September 16, 2019. (b) The pertinent legal principle 1) The subsequent completion of the procedural acts as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act can only be made where the parties could not comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to them. Here, the term “reasons not attributable to the parties” refers to a cause for which the parties could not comply with the due period, even though they had exercised the due diligence to perform the procedural acts. Thus, if the delivery of the procedural documents is impossible by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice, it is different from from the case by public notice from the beginning, and thus, the parties have the duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit at the date of pleading, they cannot be said to be negligent.