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. We examine the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case ex officio as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case.

A. The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.”

The phrase “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period even though the party had exercised the duty of care to conduct the procedural acts.

In case where the service of litigation documents is inevitable by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served during the process of litigation, unlike the case by public notice from the beginning, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of litigation procedures.

Therefore, if the parties did not know about the progress of the lawsuit in the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2017Du47021 Decided February 8, 2018; 2004Da2083 Decided March 12, 2004, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2017Du47021, Feb. 8, 20

The following facts are clear in records:

1) The Defendant was present at the date of pleading No. 2 and 3 times after receiving a notice of a copy of the instant complaint and the date of pleading from the court of first instance, which is the domicile of the court of first instance. On the date of third pleading for which the pleadings have been concluded, the Defendant was notified of the date of first instance trial ( November 20, 2018) (2) as notified by the court of first instance on November 20, 2018. (3) On the same day, the court of first instance sentenced the judgment in the absence of both parties, and sent the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant’s domicile on the same day.

3) In the event that delivery at least three times from November 22, 2018 to November 26, 2018 was impossible due to the absence of closure, the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment on November 28, 2018, and the said original copy of the judgment was deemed to have been served on the Defendant at the time of December 13, 2018.