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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a)The following facts in fact of recognition are apparent or obvious to this court in the records:

1) On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order with the Busan District Court 2014 tea15909, and on November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff received the payment order from the said court, but the said payment order was not served on the Defendant on the ground of the absence of closure, and subsequently filed an application for the lawsuit following the correction of address. (2) On March 31, 2015, the court of first instance served the Defendant’s domicile with the Busan Dong-gu, Busan District Court D and the second floor, and the Defendant was served with a duplicate, etc. of the written complaint on April 2, 2015.

3) On May 8, 2015, the court of first instance served a notice of the date of pleading on the Defendant’s domicile. On May 12, 2015, the court of first instance served the Defendant’s mother E received the notice of the said date of pleading on May 12, 2015. (4) The court of first instance concluded the pleading on the same day, and declared the Plaintiff’s winning judgment on the confession principle.

5) On June 12, 2015 and June 24, 2015, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on two occasions at the Defendant’s address, but did not serve as a closed door and a director’s unknown. On July 2, 2015, the service of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant was effective on July 17, 2015, by serving the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant. 6) The Defendant submitted the instant written appeal on April 2, 2018.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period even though the party had exercised generally due diligence for conducting procedural acts. In a case where a document of lawsuit cannot be served in a way of service by public notice, as the duplicate, etc. of the complaint was served lawfully and the lawsuit was subsequently pending, the service of the copy, etc. of the complaint was first served by public notice.