beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 4. of the annex of the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. Whether the appeal is lawful after subsequent completion;
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) served a duplicate of the instant complaint with F, signed the Defendant’s name, and failed to deliver it to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant lawsuit is pending; and (c) was not aware of the fact that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served on July 30, 2014 by service by public notice; and (d) was served on the Defendant on July 30, 2014, the judgment of the first instance court was served to the Defendant by public notice; and accordingly, (c) the instant appeal filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful as
B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party fulfilled his/her general duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. Thus, where the service of documents related to a lawsuit was impossible as a result of the failure to serve the documents in the process of the lawsuit by public notice, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, even if it is different from that of service by public notice. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence. Such duty of investigation shall be borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date of pleading, whether the party appointed
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006, etc.). As to the instant case, a notice of the date of pronouncement of a judgment without pleading by the first instance court was served by registered mail because it was not served due to the absence of closure, and the original copy of the judgment by the first instance court was not served due to the absence of closure, and the fact of service by public notice on October 18, 2013 is clearly recorded in the record, but whether the Defendant was served with the duplicate of the instant complaint.