beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of an appeal
A. Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “a service to be made to a legal representative may also be made at a business office or office of the person to be served (hereinafter referred to as “domicile, etc.”): Provided, That a service to be made to a legal representative may be made at the business office or office of the person to be served,” and Article 183(2) of the same Act provides that “if the person to be served fails to know the place under paragraph (1) or is unable to serve at such place, such service may be made at the address, etc. of another person employed by an employment, delegation or other legal act (hereinafter referred to as “work place”), and Article 186(2) provides that “if a person to be served at a work place has not been present, the document may be delivered to a person to be served at such other person under Article 183(2) or his/her legal representative or employee, who is man of sense,
Meanwhile, Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way during the course of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a way of service by public notice. As such, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit even 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 parties are attributable to any reason for not being held responsible.
B. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff against the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) who is the director general of the editing bureau employed in C and C, a co-defendant of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”) and the director general of the editing bureau employed in B.