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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On October 1, 2016, the Defendant received a duplicate of the instant complaint from the Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment and 503 Dong 301, which is the Defendant’s domicile, through a liveer C on October 1, 2016.

B. The Defendant did not submit a written reply within 30 days from the date of receiving the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the first instance court sent the notice of the sentencing date (non-statement) to the Defendant’s address above the Defendant’s address, but did not serve the documents due to the absence of closure, and served the documents by the method of delivery, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment on November 24, 2016.

C. Although the first instance court sent the original copy of the judgment of the first instance to the Defendant’s address, it was served on December 9, 2016 by means of service by public notice, and on December 24, 2016, the service became effective.

On August 29, 2017, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion to two weeks from the date of entry into force.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “A party’s “reasons for which he/she is not liable” refers to a cause for which the party could not comply with the period, even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the litigation. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the delivery of a copy of the complaint was different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party’

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 Decided July 22, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 Decided July 22, 2006