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. The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist,” and “reasons not attributable to him/her” in this context refers to the grounds for not complying with the relevant period, even though the party had exercised generally required due diligence for conducting such litigation. In cases where documents cannot be served in a usual way while the lawsuit is in progress and served by service by public notice due to the impossibility of being served with documents by public notice, it is different from cases where the lawsuit was conducted by public notice from the date on which the copy of the complaint was served, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be said that the party is due to any cause not attributable to him/her. In addition, whether the party was present and present at the date of pleading, and whether the following notice was given at the date of pleading is appointed

(1) According to the records, the first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint of this case on October 2, 1998, and on October 11, 2012, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998; 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). The records reveal that the Defendant received a duplicate of the complaint of this case through an office clerk C in the above address on January 9, 2015. After that, the Defendant failed to submit a written response within 30 days from the date on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served by the Defendant, the first instance court intended to serve a notice of the date of pronouncement to the above address on March 13, 2015, while the first instance court tried to serve a notice of the date of pronouncement by setting a date of pronouncement as the said