beta
Text
1. The appeal by the defendant B shall be dismissed;
2. Defendant I’s appeal is dismissed.
3. The appeal costs.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of appeal filed after the subsequent completion of Defendant B
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the relevant legal doctrine refers to a reason why a party is unable to observe the period even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice. Thus, if a party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed as a cause not attributable to the party. In addition, such obligation shall be borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date for pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, or whether the attorney was appointed, regardless of whether or not the party was appointed.
(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da211886 Decided October 30, 2014, etc.) B.
Judgment
1) On March 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants. The first instance court is the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).
At the time of the notice, a duplicate, etc. of the instant complaint was served to Ulsan-gu J, the main office of which is located in the corporate register, and the employee or the representative director of the Defendant B received the notice of the date of pleading for the Defendant B, the first instance court served the notice of the date of pleading for the Defendant B to the above address, but failed to serve the notice of the date of pleading for the Defendant B, and then served the notice by means of delivery, and then rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant B. When the original copy of the said judgment was impossible to serve, the first instance court