1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost (including the cost resulting from the succession) shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. (1) On February 9, 200, the bankrupt bank mutual savings and finance companies filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the attempted interest of KRW 189,976,860 against the Defendant and the first instance co-defendants.

(2) The court of the first instance held two days of pleading, and the co-defendant D of the first instance court submitted a written response to the above court on April 17, 2000.

(3) On May 19, 200, the first instance court sentenced the defendant and the co-defendant A of the first instance court to accept all the plaintiff's claims on May 19, 200, and sentenced the confession pursuant to Article 139 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002).

(4) The defendant and the co-defendant D of the first instance judgment are legal couples and the parties' columns of the first instance judgment are written as "Seoul Seodaemun-gu G, whose domicile is the same as that of the defendant and D, and the defendant transferred to the above domicile on March 30, 1999 even in the abstract of the defendant's resident registration.

(5) The first instance court served the original copy of the judgment by means of service by public notice to D and the Defendant, and reached June 5, 200.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was in a separate state with D at the time of the instant lawsuit, and D voluntarily moved his/her resident registration to his/her domicile as stated in the first instance judgment, and the Defendant did not have resided in the said domicile.

Therefore, since the fact of the instant lawsuit was unaware of, and the original copy of the judgment was not accepted, it constitutes a case where the peremptory term cannot be complied with due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself.

(2) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of generally required care to conduct a procedural act, and is going through the process of a lawsuit.