A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" means the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she has performed the duty of due care to conduct procedural acts, even though he/she had performed the duty

However, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal should be deemed as attributable to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, if the judgment was rendered without knowing the fact that the Defendant had been pending, and only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice and became aware of such fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

1) On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and indicated the Defendant’s address as “Gwan-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju-gu.” On May 30, 2016, the court of first instance (hereinafter “Duplicate, etc.”) indicating the Defendant’s address as “Gwan-gu, Seo-gu.”

(2) On July 4, 2016, the court of first instance served a notice of the date of pleading on July 4, 2016, but did not serve the said notice on the date of pleading due to the unknown whereabouts of the director, and served the said document on July 15, 2016.

3. On July 5, 2016, the court of first instance also tried to serve a notice of the sentencing date on the defendant on July 5, 2016, but does not serve the notice on the defendant due to the addressee's unknown, and served the notice on August 5, 2016.