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
purport.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Prior to the judgment on the merits, we examine whether the appeal filed by the Defendant was lawful.
Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party had been generally obliged to perform the procedural acts. As such, where the service of documents related to a lawsuit during the process of the lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents related to the lawsuit was made in the method of service by public notice as a result, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the beginning. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence if the party did not know of the progress of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006). Thus, the grounds for subsequent completion, such as the circumstance that the party did not know of the fact of the pronouncement and delivery of the judgment and the delivery of the
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da21222, Jan. 30, 2001).
According to the records, the plaintiff received the complaint of this case on August 5, 2015, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the defendant on August 18, 2015 without submitting a reply, etc. within 30 days from the defendant to the court of first instance on August 18, 2015, but not being served due to the absence of closure. On October 1, 2015, the service of the copy, etc. of the complaint of this case was conducted again on October 1, 2015, but was not served due to the absence of closure; ② the plaintiff's legal representative corrected the defendant's address on November 3, 2015; ② the defendant was served with the copy, etc. of the complaint of this case at the corrected domicile on November 23, 2015; ③ the defendant did not submit a reply, etc. within 30 days, and ④ the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the defendant on January 18, 2016.