1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan amounting to KRW 59,887,305 and its delay damages against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

(2) The first instance court served a duplicate of the instant complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit on February 19, 2016 on the Defendant’s representative F’s receipt of the same on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s domicile: (b) the copy of the instant complaint and the written guidance of lawsuit was served; (c) the Defendant’s representative F’s receipt was made on February 19

3) The first instance court served a notice of the sentencing date on the Defendant at the address above, but sent it on April 18, 2016, to the Defendant who was not served on the addressee’s unknown address. 4) On April 28, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 28, 2016, and served the Defendant with the original copy of the judgment as the Defendant’s address above, but was not served on May 9, 2016.

5) From June 4, 2016, the Defendant submitted a petition of appeal to July 1, 2016, which was subsequent to the expiration of the appeal period, from June 4, 2016, which became effective by public notice. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the obvious fact on the record, significant fact in the court, and the purport

B. The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”

In this context, the "reasons for which the parties cannot be held responsible" refers to the reasons why the parties could not comply with the period even though they fulfilled generally the duty of care to conduct the litigation. If the service of documents related to the lawsuit is impossible as a result of the impossibility of being served in the course of the lawsuit by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, as it is different from that of service by public notice, and thus the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit at the court.