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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the relevant legal principles refers to "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she has exercised a general duty to do the procedural acts, and in cases where the service of documents related to a lawsuit in the course of a lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents related to the lawsuit was made in a method of service by public notice is inevitable as a result, the party has a duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence. In addition, such obligation is borne, regardless of whether the party was present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for pleading following the date

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 Decided July 22, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 97Da50152 Decided October 2, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 86Da2224 Decided March 10, 198; and Supreme Court Decision 86Da2224 Decided March 10, 198; etc.). Moreover, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the pronouncement and service of the judgment, shall be asserted and proved by the party who intends to subsequently supplement the appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). B.

Judgment

According to the records of this case, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant at the court of first instance on September 13, 2017, and the defendant received the duplicate of the complaint on October 23, 2017, and on October 25, 2017, the defendant served the duplicate of the complaint at the defendant's domicile on October 25, 2017, and the court of first instance served the defendant with the copy of the complaint at the defendant's domicile; the court of first instance served the notice to the defendant on the date of pleading but did not serve the notice on the defendant by means of delivery by registered mail at the defendant's domicile; and thereafter, the court of first instance served on April