1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the appeal of this case.

After the court of first instance sentenced the judgment on July 27, 2015, when the original of the judgment against the defendant was unable to be served due to the absence of closure, it served the original of the judgment by means of service by public notice on August 11, 2015, and it became effective at the time of August 26, 2015.

On September 10, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal on September 10, 2015, asserting that “The Defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal for reasons not attributable to it on the grounds of circumstances in the region, such as annoying and going through annoying process due to coarization and maritis caused by the sofamination of faat, etc.”

An appeal shall be filed within two weeks from the date on which the judgment was served, and within two weeks from the date on which the judgment was served.

(Article 396(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. In a case where a party is unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In this context, the term “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the reasons for failure to observe the appeal period despite the party’s exercise of generally required care to conduct procedural acts.

In a case where a document of lawsuit is served by public notice because it is ordinarily impossible to serve the document of lawsuit in the course of the lawsuit, such document shall be served by public notice from the first delivery of a copy of complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. If a party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and thus fails to abide by the peremptory period, it shall not be deemed that the party is due to any cause not attributable to him.

In this case, on July 25, 2014, the court of the first instance ordered the defendant to serve a service by public notice, but the defendant revoked the order of service by public notice on August 8, 2014 on August 11, 2014.

On August 20, 2014, the Defendant shall make a duplicate of the instant complaint.