1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion was served by means of service by public notice, and the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence.

On January 2, 2020, the Defendant perused the records of this case and came to know the fact that the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive, and filed an appeal for the subsequent completion on January 9, 2020, not more than two weeks thereafter.

Therefore, since the defendant failed to comply with the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, the appeal of this case is lawful.

B. Determination 1) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason for the party to be unable to comply with the period, even though the party had fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the pertinent litigation. In a case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the litigation process and served by public notice, the delivery of a copy of the complaint is different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be deemed as due to a reason for which the party is not responsible. Furthermore, the circumstance that the party was not negligent in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know of the pronouncement and delivery of the judgment, shall be asserted and proved by the party to the subsequent appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006; 2012Da4370, Oct. 11, 2012).

① On February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff indicated the Defendant’s address as “unknown” and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On April 9, 2019, the Defendant’s address was “Seoul Guro-gu Buildings,” and “Seoul Building.”