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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case refers to the reasons why the parties could not observe the period even though the parties had exercised generally the duty to perform the procedural acts. In a case where the service of documents relating to a lawsuit in the course of a lawsuit was impossible as a result of the impossibility of being served by means of service by public notice, the parties are obliged 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, and such obligation is not committed if the parties did not know of the progress of the lawsuit at the court, and whether they were present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether they were notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, or whether they were appointed the legal representative.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082, Jul. 22, 2004). 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, etc., should be proved by the party who intends to subsequently supplement the appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant at the court of first instance. The Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, was served with a duplicate of the complaint on November 8, 2017 at the Defendant’s domicile, and the court of first instance subsequently notified the Defendant of the date for delivery by registered mail due to the Defendant’s domicile, but it was impossible to serve the original copy of the judgment on April 17, 2018. The first instance court rendered the instant judgment on March 8, 2018, upon the Defendant’s failure to serve the original copy of the judgment on the Defendant as a means of delivery by registered mail. Since the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment on the Defendant, it was impossible to serve the original copy of the judgment by means of service by publication, and served the original copy of the judgment on April 17, 2018.