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
1..
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case
A. In a case where a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him
may file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist.
However, if the defendant knew of his lawsuit and neglected it to serve by public notice, even though he was unaware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, the defendant was negligent in finding such fact.
As such, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful.
(2) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The parties concerned shall not be held responsible for the procedural acts of subsequent completion of the procedural acts of this case” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da41484, 41491, Apr. 29, 2005). In addition, the parties concerned shall not be held responsible for the procedural acts of this case only when they are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them. The term “reasons not attributable to them” in this context refers to a cause for which the parties concerned could not comply with the period, even though they have exercised generally due diligence to do so for the procedural acts of this case. Thus, where the delivery of documents by public notice was inevitable as a result of the impossibility of the procedural acts of this case by public notice from the beginning and the parties concerned have the duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the parties concerned did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence.